Tara Reade is a person who exists

[Metaphor]

I believe that mentioned religious belief upthread.

Quite a number of well educated people—even holding advanced degrees in science still believe in a deity, still adhere to an established religion because they choose to believe in their religion, despite having at hand many well established facts that could dissuade them as those facts have dissuaded so many others. Religious belief or disbelief is a matter of choice. Sometimes, well educated adults who were not raised in religious households choose to adopt a religion because they have chosen to believe in a deity and religious philosophy.

None of that means it is a choice. It means they weren't persuaded by facts that persuaded others.

 

[Metaphor]

Tell me, on what occassions have you wilfully controlled what you believe?

Up until this thread, I willfully controlled that I believed your hyperbolically stated positions were rational despite all the evidence to the contrary.

A long time ago, I believed in a loving, all knowing God. After some conversations and some deep thinking (which was willful), I choose to conclude that was not true.

I believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God once, too. I read a philosophy textbook in high school that showed that the evidence for it seems unlikely, and my belief was weakened but not erased. Over the years I continued to read more and listen to podcasts and one day I realised I was an atheist.

None of that means it was a voluntary, willed change in belief. Educating yourself and then being convinced by evidence does not mean you willed a change in belief. Such is impossible.

 

[Metaphor]

I have seen and read many sources on the case.

What is your evidence Sulkowitz was lying?

The Daily Beast article you linked to is the most comprehensive of the three, although it failed to mention there was a fourth accuser, a male student who said Nungesser sexually assaulted him as well. Even so, in all that detailed account of who did what when, there's no evidence Sulkowitz was lying about Nungesser's actions. So why do you believe she was? And just how certain is your belief? Is it provisional or absolute?

In this particular case, Nungesser said the sex was consensual. Why do you believe Sulkowicz and not Nungesser?

If all I had to go on was the basic he said/she said, I would probably think it was a horrible miscommunication, much like the Al and Bert scenario I presented earlier in the thread. But there are three other people who say Nungesser sexually assaulted them. For me, that tips the scales toward believing Sulkowitz' accusation and disbelieving Nungesser's denials.

BTW, they both say the sex started out as consensual. Sulkowitz says that changed when Nungesser did something that was very painful and upsetting, and ignored her cries to stop. They both say he'd been drinking so perhaps that was a factor. Or maybe he just likes pushing past boundaries, which would certainly explain the other three accusations.

Anyway, you said Sulkowitz was lying. Where's the evidence of that?

Obviously Metaphor believes she was lying and such belief is totally beyond his control despite any lack of evidence to support his belief. At least if I correctly understand Metaphor’s beliefs about belief.

I don't believe Sulkowicz but my belief could be changed if Nungesser confessed or there was video evidence showing Sulkowicz's account was correct.

But even if I changed my belief, it was because my brain responds to evidence, not because I wanted or did not want to believe.

 

[Metaphor]

I have seen and read many sources on the case.

What is your evidence Sulkowitz was lying?

The Daily Beast article you linked to is the most comprehensive of the three, although it failed to mention there was a fourth accuser, a male student who said Nungesser sexually assaulted him as well. Even so, in all that detailed account of who did what when, there's no evidence Sulkowitz was lying about Nungesser's actions. So why do you believe she was? And just how certain is your belief? Is it provisional or absolute?

In this particular case, Nungesser said the sex was consensual. Why do you believe Sulkowicz and not Nungesser?

If all I had to go on was the basic he said/she said, I would probably think it was a horrible miscommunication, much like the Al and Bert scenario I presented earlier in the thread. But there are three other people who say Nungesser sexually assaulted them. For me, that tips the scales toward believing Sulkowitz' accusation and disbelieving Nungesser's denials.

BTW, they both say the sex started out as consensual. Sulkowitz says that changed when Nungesser did something that was very painful and upsetting, and ignored her cries to stop. They both say he'd been drinking so perhaps that was a factor. Or maybe he just likes pushing past boundaries, which would certainly explain the other three accusations.

Anyway, you said Sulkowitz was lying. Where's the evidence of that?

I've told you the evidence. I linked to it. I believe her text messages after the event, and Nungesser's multiple exonerations, are evidence that Sulkowicz was lying.

 

[Arctish]

I have seen and read many sources on the case.

What is your evidence Sulkowitz was lying?

The Daily Beast article you linked to is the most comprehensive of the three, although it failed to mention there was a fourth accuser, a male student who said Nungesser sexually assaulted him as well. Even so, in all that detailed account of who did what when, there's no evidence Sulkowitz was lying about Nungesser's actions. So why do you believe she was? And just how certain is your belief? Is it provisional or absolute?

In this particular case, Nungesser said the sex was consensual. Why do you believe Sulkowicz and not Nungesser?

If all I had to go on was the basic he said/she said, I would probably think it was a horrible miscommunication, much like the Al and Bert scenario I presented earlier in the thread. But there are three other people who say Nungesser sexually assaulted them. For me, that tips the scales toward believing Sulkowitz' accusation and disbelieving Nungesser's denials.

BTW, they both say the sex started out as consensual. Sulkowitz says that changed when Nungesser did something that was very painful and upsetting, and ignored her cries to stop. They both say he'd been drinking so perhaps that was a factor. Or maybe he just likes pushing past boundaries, which would certainly explain the other three accusations.

Anyway, you said Sulkowitz was lying. Where's the evidence of that?

I've told you the evidence. I linked to it. I believe her text messages after the event, and Nungesser's multiple exonerations, are evidence that Sulkowicz was lying.

There is no evidence she was lying.

Her text messages do not indicate lying***. Her statements were not found to be false. Nungesser was not exonerated in the sense that exculpatory evidence was found. He was exonerated in the sense that there simply isn't enough evidence the consensual sex he had with Sulkowitz ended with the use of force and sexual abuse to sustain the charges against him, therefore the investigation was closed.

You believe Sulkowitz was lying because you accepted it as true without evidence.


***I won't get into the research on how people react to traumatic events like rape unless the Tara Reade discussion develops in that direction, but there's plenty of evidence that denial and attempts to quickly return to 'normal life' are a common early reaction.

 

[angelo]

Democrats Will Have To Answer Questions About Tara Reade. The Biden Campaign Is Advising Them To Say Her Story “Did Not Happen.” BuzzFeed's take on the matter.


https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/joe-biden-tara-reade-talking-points-campaign-defense

 

[Metaphor]

There is no evidence she was lying.

Her text messages do not indicate lying***. Her statements were not found to be false. Nungesser was not exonerated in the sense that exculpatory evidence was found. He was exonerated in the sense that there simply isn't enough evidence the consensual sex he had with Sulkowitz ended with the use of force and sexual abuse to sustain the charges against him, therefore the investigation was closed.

You believe Sulkowitz was lying because you accepted it as true without evidence.


***I won't get into the research on how people react to traumatic events like rape unless the Tara Reade discussion develops in that direction, but there's plenty of evidence that denial and attempts to quickly return to 'normal life' are a common early reaction.

I told you the evidence that caused me to believe Sulkowicz was lying. You may not find the evidence convincing or you might believe that I'm mistaken about the nature of the evidence, but it was nevertheless the evidence that caused me to believe it.

Also you keep spelling her name incorrectly.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

I can believe Biden went beyond his usual hands-on hair sniffing approach more than a few times. "Grab 'em by the privates" is a significant escalation, but it could happen. Digital penetration is pretty extreme though, and apparently out-of-character. Still, I think there's substance to Reade's story.

I'd rather Biden step aside and the Democrats choose a candidate from those who survived the first few rounds of the debates. And I'd rather there be a genuine investigation into the allegation, not a dog-and-pony show with the Democrat version of Lindsey Graham wringing his hands over how unfair it is that men seeking high office have to endure having their past behavior scrutinized.

I think that and then I remember: Bill Cosby.

But different circumstances here. Where I really get stuck is how she described her clothing: typical business wear skirt, blouse, no pantyhose. Back in my DC days, I was really thin and had a hard time finding skirts with a small enough waist band--there was some extra room there. Still, I am certain that it would have been quite a struggle for any adult to stick their hand down my waist to my crotch area, even if I were cooperative (not to suggest anything at all about cooperation or non-cooperation of Tara Reade--I'm just saying that it seems like a difficult thing to do under the best of circumstances.) Alternatively, up her skirt---a pencil skirt? Again, not impossible but hard to imagine unless the skirt were way too big and even then. Now pull her in for a kiss with tongue, suggestions of other stuff, grabbing her ass or her breast? Plausible. It's the whole digital penetration WEARING THE OUTFIT SHE DESCRIBED part that I have some trouble with. If she had said: mini skirt--then sure, I could imagine that happening because it would have been relatively easy to accomplish. What she describes seems difficult to accomplish, especially in a hallway in a building with people in it, not some dark corner somewhere.

Yea, I just have a real problem believing her story. First, the story changed several times. It was reported late. Twice reported late. These are two issues that severely goes towards credibility. Tara isn't a typical helpless victim who dosn't understand the system. She's a lawyer. Then she claims that she reported the assaults to several women in Biden's employ who don't remember the assaults. Then she dosn't remember the date, time, or location of the assault (again, I think that the typical lawyer would understand the importance of documenting this). This is important because it robs Biden the ability to note an alibi if he has one. Then she claims that she lost her job over this which appears to be a lie. Then the Larry King show is very strange. Tara's mom calls a TV show anonymous, and she dosn't feel comfortable talking about the assault? Why would she downplay the seriousness of the event if she were anonymous? That Tara's said nothing about her daughter being sexually assaulted would lead many reasonable people to conclude that sexual assault was not the problem that prompted the call to King. It was something else. This story just dosn't ring true to me. Tara appears to be me to have a political axe to grind with Biden. She seems to love the spotlight that she's in now. She'll be a very popular hit on fox news. And I'm sure the Russian Bots are excited about this story!

 

[laughing dog]

Tell me, on what occassions have you wilfully controlled what you believe?

Up until this thread, I willfully controlled that I believed your hyperbolically stated positions were rational despite all the evidence to the contrary.

A long time ago, I believed in a loving, all knowing God. After some conversations and some deep thinking (which was willful), I choose to conclude that was not true.

I believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God once, too. I read a philosophy textbook in high school that showed that the evidence for it seems unlikely, and my belief was weakened but not erased. Over the years I continued to read more and listen to podcasts and one day I realised I was an atheist.

None of that means it was a voluntary, willed change in belief. Educating yourself and then being convinced by evidence does not mean you willed a change in belief. Such is impossible.

I get it. You brain is an involuntary muscle over which you have no control in these matters. That does not mean everyone is like you.

Not every belief is a matter of will, but whether are capable of recognizing it or not, everyone is not like you.

I willed to think about God. I willed to discuss it. I willed my choice to disbelieve.

 

[Metaphor]

I believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God once, too. I read a philosophy textbook in high school that showed that the evidence for it seems unlikely, and my belief was weakened but not erased. Over the years I continued to read more and listen to podcasts and one day I realised I was an atheist.

None of that means it was a voluntary, willed change in belief. Educating yourself and then being convinced by evidence does not mean you willed a change in belief. Such is impossible.

I get it. You brain is an involuntary muscle over which you have no control in these matters. That does not mean everyone is like you.

Not every belief is a matter of will, but whether are capable of recognizing it or not, everyone is not like you.

I willed to think about God. I willed to discuss it. I willed my choice to disbelieve.

You can do as you will. You can't will as you will.

 

[laughing dog]

I believed in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God once, too. I read a philosophy textbook in high school that showed that the evidence for it seems unlikely, and my belief was weakened but not erased. Over the years I continued to read more and listen to podcasts and one day I realised I was an atheist.

None of that means it was a voluntary, willed change in belief. Educating yourself and then being convinced by evidence does not mean you willed a change in belief. Such is impossible.

I get it. You brain is an involuntary muscle over which you have no control in these matters. That does not mean everyone is like you.

Not every belief is a matter of will, but whether are capable of recognizing it or not, everyone is not like you.

I willed to think about God. I willed to discuss it. I willed my choice to disbelieve.

You can do as you will. You can't will as you will.

Please stop projecting your unfounded, involuntary beliefs onto others.

 

[Toni]

I believe that mentioned religious belief upthread.

Quite a number of well educated people—even holding advanced degrees in science still believe in a deity, still adhere to an established religion because they choose to believe in their religion, despite having at hand many well established facts that could dissuade them as those facts have dissuaded so many others. Religious belief or disbelief is a matter of choice. Sometimes, well educated adults who were not raised in religious households choose to adopt a religion because they have chosen to believe in a deity and religious philosophy.

None of that means it is a choice. It means they weren't persuaded by facts that persuaded others.

Not at all. Rational people choose to believe things that go against rational thought, knowledge, facts, and history all of the time.

Partners choose to stay with a partner who abuses them, choosing to believe the apologies and promises that it will never happen again. The first or second time, perhaps they simply do not believe the facts: their partner is abusive. But after a while, they are making a choice to believe that they can avoid abuse if they are good enough or do whatever the partner wants or avoid making them angry, etc. Of course, there are a lot of emotions involved but with belief, there often is.

Family members welcome back an addict, believing that *this* time, rehab worked and their addicted family member will be functioning member once again. And sometimes that belief is well founded. Sometimes it is not.

 

[Toni]

I've told you the evidence. I linked to it. I believe her text messages after the event, and Nungesser's multiple exonerations, are evidence that Sulkowicz was lying.

There is no evidence she was lying.

Her text messages do not indicate lying***. Her statements were not found to be false. Nungesser was not exonerated in the sense that exculpatory evidence was found. He was exonerated in the sense that there simply isn't enough evidence the consensual sex he had with Sulkowitz ended with the use of force and sexual abuse to sustain the charges against him, therefore the investigation was closed.

You believe Sulkowitz was lying because you accepted it as true without evidence.


***I won't get into the research on how people react to traumatic events like rape unless the Tara Reade discussion develops in that direction, but there's plenty of evidence that denial and attempts to quickly return to 'normal life' are a common early reaction.

Exactly on point.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Anyway, while you all try to explain to Metaphor the concept of alternative meanings to words and that no one gives a flying fuck what his own private Idaho looks like, here’s a recent, compelling opinion piece by a former prosecutor: Why I'm skeptical about Reade's sexual assault claim against Biden: Ex-prosecutor

 

[Metaphor]

Not at all. Rational people choose to believe things that go against rational thought, knowledge, facts, and history all of the time.

Partners choose to stay with a partner who abuses them, choosing to believe the apologies and promises that it will never happen again. The first or second time, perhaps they simply do not believe the facts: their partner is abusive. But after a while, they are making a choice to believe that they can avoid abuse if they are good enough or do whatever the partner wants or avoid making them angry, etc. Of course, there are a lot of emotions involved but with belief, there often is.

Family members welcome back an addict, believing that *this* time, rehab worked and their addicted family member will be functioning member once again. And sometimes that belief is well founded. Sometimes it is not.

Non. What you're saying is they didn't really believe it, even though they constructed mental arguments for why they wanted to believe it.

Voluntary belief is something philosophically incomprehensible to me.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Voluntary belief is something philosophically incomprehensible to me.

Noted. Are you done now?

 

[Metaphor]

Voluntary belief is something philosophically incomprehensible to me.

Noted. Are you done now?

I can see many people on this board still haven't let go of the little god of "free will" and I can also see it's perhaps fruitless to try to persuade them.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Voluntary belief is something philosophically incomprehensible to me.

Noted. Are you done now?

I can see many people on this board still haven't let go of the little god of "free will" and I can also see it's perhaps fruitless to try to persuade them.

Also noted. You can’t comprehend the incredibly simple, common practice of provisional belief and you feel persuading some to let go the “little god” of “free will” is fruitless. Can we all move on now?

 

[laughing dog]

Not at all. Rational people choose to believe things that go against rational thought, knowledge, facts, and history all of the time.

Partners choose to stay with a partner who abuses them, choosing to believe the apologies and promises that it will never happen again. The first or second time, perhaps they simply do not believe the facts: their partner is abusive. But after a while, they are making a choice to believe that they can avoid abuse if they are good enough or do whatever the partner wants or avoid making them angry, etc. Of course, there are a lot of emotions involved but with belief, there often is.

Family members welcome back an addict, believing that *this* time, rehab worked and their addicted family member will be functioning member once again. And sometimes that belief is well founded. Sometimes it is not.

Non. What you're saying is they didn't really believe it, even though they constructed mental arguments for why they wanted to believe it.

Now you believe you can actually read people's minds to determine what they believe and what they don't believe.

Voluntary belief is something philosophically incomprehensible to me.

That is evident. But I wager you will not agree on what the logical conclusion from that statement is.

 

[KeepTalking]

Getting back to Tara Reade. Suppose she is telling the truth and Biden did sexually harass/molest her? Apparently in a national election in the US, that is not a significant negative, otherwise the human shitpost that is our President would not have been elected.

Right. Even if her story is true in every detail she currently provides, that leaves me with a choice between a one time sexual assaulter who is at least ashamed enough of his actions to deny them, and serial sexual assaulter who bragged about it. I know who I am going with, and that is even before weighing character, demeanor, policy and ideology between the two "men".