Sen. Feinstein Claims She Received Info On Kavanaugh And Sent It To FBI

[Angra Mainyu]

So, in other words, NO, you will not cop to accepting that his likely perjury and the failure to investigate it is a severe dereliction of duty.

That is not "in other words", but a gross misconstruction of what I said, which is this.

Or in other words, you are dissembling and deflecting from your own failure to expect ethical behavior when it is a republican doing it.

That is not "in other words", but a gross misconstruction of what I said, which is this.

You attribute to me beliefs and intentions that I don't have and that you have no good reason to think I have.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, it is not the case that I admitted he committed perjury. I reckoned he did, on the basis of the available evidence. It was not an admission.

I

The Senate is not a person. It has no moral duties. Individual Senators do. Whether they behaved immorally depends on the Senator. I would need conclusive evidence in each case. Did they all know that "boofing" not mean that? What would have happened if they had voted differently, in terms of consequences, and in their assessment? Probably, most behaved immorally, for different reasons.

Second, I did not say I came back to "defend the character of your post". That is a misquote. Again, I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

Third, my coming back is not a red herring. What is important to me now (the reason I came back) is precisely what I said.

Fourth, how was the hearing a "sham"?

I reckoned he lied. I did not admit that. And the claim that I should not speak to that is unwarranted and false.

If you mean legal duties, I do not know of any law that says Senators must not confirm candidates that commit perjury. If you know of one, please let me know, but as far as I can tell, there was no law breaking on the part of any of the Senators.

Holy Bejeebus, you already lost this debate you created once you admitted he lied, thereby implicitly admitting he perjured himself. Now you're just arguing to argue. Questions. Semantic Quibbling. It's all quite obvious to any rational reader why the hearing was a scam. Just stop already. This is embarrassing to watch.

No, that is false. I never admitted he lied. I reckoned he lied. I never argued or implied otherwise. I did not admit he committed perjury. I reckoned he committed perjury. I never lost any debate about whether he lied or committed perjury, because I never argued that he did not do either of those. There were a number of things we debated, most of which you lost, because you were jumping to conclusions about him and about me, making assessments not warranted by the evidence, etc. For example, you claimed:

Allowing someone to perjure themselves over and over after denying a previous President a confirmation of a Justice is not obeying rule of law.

You failed to provide any good reason to suspect that they broke any laws.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No, that is false. I never admitted he lied. I reckoned he lied.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, that is false. I never admitted he lied. I reckoned he lied.

Let us take a look at the exchange:

Kavanaugh was guilty of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a specific matter in mind, or are you saying that there is conclusive evidence that he lied about something?
If the former, maybe. I haven't looked at all of the details, but if you want to provide the relevant links, I will take a look.
If the latter, I agree. That would not be enough for a conviction due to lack of identification of the specific lie, but it is enough to say that he committed perjury (adding several probable or very probable lies, a statement that is almost certainly a lie when conditioned to the other statement not being so, etc., can get one to "certainly at least one lie" without being able to identify the lie)

So, in short, even before I reckoned that he lied about the meaning of "buffing", I said he lied. As for specific instances, I said I hadn't looked at the details, but I would if you provided the relevant links. You provided evidence you thought established conclusively that he lied. In most cases, I reckoned the evidence was insufficient. But in the case of the meaning of "boofing", I reckoned it was sufficient. Nevertheless, I had already reckoned that he had committed perjury before.

You ascribe to me stances that I don't have and that you should not believe I have, and then claim that I lost a debate when I reckon something that is in conflict with one of the stances in question.

You might as well tell Dawkins that he admitted that God does not exist, so he lost the debate.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You ascribe to me stances that I don't have -

Then stop claiming you are debating me if you agree he perjured himself and therefore it was a scam to push him through.

'Nuff said.

 

[Elixir]

You ascribe to me stances that I don't have -

Then stop claiming you are debating me if you agree he perjured himself and therefore it was a scam to push him through.

'Nuff said.

He lied to the Senate about knowingly receiving stolen documents... and emails prove it. The Republican Senate is keeping THAT under wraps.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You ascribe to me stances that I don't have -

Then stop claiming you are debating me if you agree he perjured himself and therefore it was a scam to push him through.

'Nuff said.

First, I had stopped debating you, though for other reasons - mostly, you had stopped trying to back up your remaining claims, and were no longer replying to me. I came back because of your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.", as I already pointed out.

Second, now you claim "therefore it was a scam to push him through". I already addressed that, but here we go again. You said:

It was a scam because Kavanaugh engaged in many, many falsities (even if you claim he was mistaken) and the listeners were all competent enough to know it.

My reply actually was:

I did and do not claim any of that. But if that makes the appointment a scam, it seems to me most presidential elections are scams, as many (probably most) of the voters are competent to know that the candidate they are voting for lied (publicly and to the public and about important matters) at least a few times (even if they can't pinpoint exactly the lies).

I do not know that he engaged in many falsities. I do know he engaged in at least one, and probably more than one. I do not know whether the listeners knew it, regardless of whether they were competent enough for that. But in any event, if that makes it a scam, chances are nearly all if not all Presidential elections are scams. If not, what is the difference?

ETA: And you now misrepresented my words again. I never claimed that I was debating you about whether he committed perjury. On the contrary, I already told you I never took part in that debate, so I did not lose it. I'm debating you on what I said, what you said, what I allegedly admitted, etc. In short, I'm defending myself against your charges. Now I'm also addressing again the "scam" claim, because you brought that up.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, in other words, NO, you will not cop to accepting that his likely perjury and the failure to investigate it is a severe dereliction of duty.

That is not "in other words", but a gross misconstruction of what I said, which is this.

Or in other words, you are dissembling and deflecting from your own failure to expect ethical behavior when it is a republican doing it.

That is not "in other words", but a gross misconstruction of what I said, which is this.

You attribute to me beliefs and intentions that I don't have and that you have no good reason to think I have.

No, I don't think it is a mischaracterization at all.

You have made every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury or of the senate for not nailing him to the fucking wall for it.

Did he lie? Fuck yes he did. Repeatedly. About many things. Should the senate have nailed him to the wall over those lies? Fuck yes they should have. Your refusal to judge them directly and unambiguously for the fact of their dereliction of obligations, and further your inability to observe that yes, there is an obligation to require a JUDGE to not perjur himself in his own job interview, s speaks volumes.

All you had to do was say "yes, I believe he perjured himself, no, the senate should not have confirmed him without investigation of that perjury; this means that the confirmation was kinda fucky."

Your failure to acknowledge the clear as day facts of the perjury casting a pall on the republicans who tacitly allowed it is entirely the reason I think you are dissembling

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

That is not "in other words", but a gross misconstruction of what I said, which is this.


That is not "in other words", but a gross misconstruction of what I said, which is this.

You attribute to me beliefs and intentions that I don't have and that you have no good reason to think I have.

No, I don't think it is a mischaracterization at all.

You have made every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury or of the senate for not nailing him to the fucking wall for it.

Did he lie? Fuck yes he did. Repeatedly. About many things. Should the senate have nailed him to the wall over those lies? Fuck yes they should have. Your refusal to judge them directly and unambiguously for the fact of their dereliction of obligations, and further your inability to observe that yes, there is an obligation to require a JUDGE to not perjur himself in his own job interview, s speaks volumes.

All you had to do was say "yes, I believe he perjured himself, no, the senate should not have confirmed him without investigation of that perjury; this means that the confirmation was kinda fucky."

Your failure to acknowledge the clear as day facts of the perjury casting a pall on the republicans who tacitly allowed it is entirely the reason I think you are dissembling

I agree.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

First, I had stopped debating you, though for other reasons - mostly, you had stopped trying to back up your remaining claims, and were no longer replying to me. I came back because of your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.", as I already pointed out.

Second, now you claim "therefore it was a scam to push him through". I already addressed that, but here we go again. You said:

It was a scam because Kavanaugh engaged in many, many falsities (even if you claim he was mistaken) and the listeners were all competent enough to know it.

My reply actually was:

I did and do not claim any of that. But if that makes the appointment a scam, it seems to me most presidential elections are scams, as many (probably most) of the voters are competent to know that the candidate they are voting for lied (publicly and to the public and about important matters) at least a few times (even if they can't pinpoint exactly the lies).

I do not know that he engaged in many falsities. I do know he engaged in at least one, and probably more than one. I do not know whether the listeners knew it, regardless of whether they were competent enough for that. But in any event, if that makes it a scam, chances are nearly all if not all Presidential elections are scams. If not, what is the difference?

ETA: And you now misrepresented my words again. I never claimed that I was debating you about whether he committed perjury. On the contrary, I already told you I never took part in that debate, so I did not lose it. I'm debating you on what I said, what you said, what I allegedly admitted, etc. In short, I'm defending myself against your charges. Now I'm also addressing again the "scam" claim, because you brought that up.

Not what I wrote. Stop misrepresenting me and engaging in overzealous semantic quibbling. You just want to argue to argue. Back to ignore you go.

 

[Arctish]

Let us take a look at the exchange:

Kavanaugh was guilty of perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Do you have a specific matter in mind, or are you saying that there is conclusive evidence that he lied about something?
If the former, maybe. I haven't looked at all of the details, but if you want to provide the relevant links, I will take a look.
If the latter, I agree. That would not be enough for a conviction due to lack of identification of the specific lie, but it is enough to say that he committed perjury (adding several probable or very probable lies, a statement that is almost certainly a lie when conditioned to the other statement not being so, etc., can get one to "certainly at least one lie" without being able to identify the lie)

So, in short, even before I reckoned that he lied about the meaning of "buffing", I said he lied.

Let me get this straight:

1. You thought it likely he lied.
2. You reckoned he lied.
3. You said he lied.

Correct?

So we're talking about a man you believe lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

First, I had stopped debating you, though for other reasons - mostly, you had stopped trying to back up your remaining claims, and were no longer replying to me. I came back because of your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself.", as I already pointed out.

Second, now you claim "therefore it was a scam to push him through". I already addressed that, but here we go again. You said:




My reply actually was:


I do not know that he engaged in many falsities. I do know he engaged in at least one, and probably more than one. I do not know whether the listeners knew it, regardless of whether they were competent enough for that. But in any event, if that makes it a scam, chances are nearly all if not all Presidential elections are scams. If not, what is the difference?

ETA: And you now misrepresented my words again. I never claimed that I was debating you about whether he committed perjury. On the contrary, I already told you I never took part in that debate, so I did not lose it. I'm debating you on what I said, what you said, what I allegedly admitted, etc. In short, I'm defending myself against your charges. Now I'm also addressing again the "scam" claim, because you brought that up.

Not what I wrote. Stop misrepresenting me and engaging in overzealous semantic quibbling. You just want to argue to argue. Back to ignore you go.

No, you're the one misrepresenting my posts. I invite readers to take a look at the exchange. And I don't want to argue to argue. I argue to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and to defend myself from the very negative and unwarranted claims or implications you make.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I don't think it is a mischaracterization at all.

It is, and a gross one as that.

So, in other words, NO, you will not cop to accepting that his likely perjury and the failure to investigate it is a severe dereliction of duty.

Your claim was about an alleged duty of the Senate. Again, the Senate is not a person. It does not have moral duties. It cannot engage in dereliction of duty. Individual Senators have moral duties. Also, the Senate is not a person. It is not even capable of committing felonies, or misdemeanors. Individual senators are.

Now, was the behavior of the senators immoral?
Probably, most of them behaved immorally when they voted, given their motivations for the vote and their beliefs at the time. That includes both the Senators who voted against and the Senators who voted for the confirmation, probably jumping to conclusions. But I do not have conclusive evidence for any given senator. Whether a behavior is immoral depends on the situation of a person, the available info, including predictable and predicted consequences of their actions, etc.

You have made every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury or of the senate for not nailing him to the fucking wall for it.

The claim that I made "every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury" is false. You did not even asked about the morality of BK's actions in the post I was replying to - or, for that matter, any other.

As for the second claim (i.e., about the Senate), I didn't "make every attempt": I just explain why I simply do not and will not make statements condemning the Senate for immoral behavior, because the Senate is not the kind of thing capable of immoral behavior. Individual senators are, and I also explained that I wasn't going to accuse without conclusive evidence. It is morally unacceptable.

Did he lie? Fuck yes he did. Repeatedly. About many things.

He lied about the meaning of "boofing". He probably lied about something else. I have not seen conclusive evidence of other individual lies. I have seen plenty of leftists jumping to conclusions about that.

Should the senate have nailed him to the wall over those lies? Fuck yes they should have.

The Senate is not the sort of entity that has moral obligations.
As to what each senator should have done, probably most should have voted against him for that reason, though there were other sufficient reasons.

Your refusal to judge them directly and unambiguously for the fact of their dereliction of obligations, and further your inability to observe that yes, there is an obligation to require a JUDGE to not perjur himself in his own job interview, s speaks volumes.

I refuse to condemn any individual person without conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. As for the dereliction of their obligations, are you talking moral or legal obligations?
If it's legal obligations, what law are you talking about?
If it's moral obligations, again, probably, but I refuse to condemn people on "probably".

All you had to do was say "yes, I believe he perjured himself, no, the senate should not have confirmed him without investigation of that perjury; this means that the confirmation was kinda fucky."

I repeatedly said that Kavanaugh lied and agreed that he committed perjury. The Senate is not a person, and has no obligations. Individual senators probably should not have confirm him regardless of whether there is a previous investigation, since there were sufficient evidence.

Your failure to acknowledge the clear as day facts of the perjury casting a pall on the republicans who tacitly allowed it is entirely the reason I think you are dissembling

You're again jumping to conclusions, and again condemning a person (in this case, me), without conclusive evidence - or anything remotely like that.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Let us take a look at the exchange:

So, in short, even before I reckoned that he lied about the meaning of "buffing", I said he lied.

Let me get this straight:

1. You thought it likely he lied.
2. You reckoned he lied.
3. You said he lied.

Correct?

So we're talking about a man you believe lied under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I said more than likely that he lied about something, or even about the meaning of "boofing". So, sure, that is correct.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you're the one misrepresenting my posts. I invite readers to take a look at the exchange. And I don't want to argue to argue. I argue to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and to defend myself from the very negative and unwarranted claims or implications you make.

- - - Updated - - -

No, I don't think it is a mischaracterization at all.

It is, and a gross one as that.

So, in other words, NO, you will not cop to accepting that his likely perjury and the failure to investigate it is a severe dereliction of duty.

Your claim was about an alleged duty of the Senate. Again, the Senate is not a person. It does not have moral duties. It cannot engage in dereliction of duty. Individual Senators have moral duties. Also, the Senate is not a person. It is not even capable of committing felonies, or misdemeanors. Individual senators are.

Now, was the behavior of the senators immoral?
Probably, most of them behaved immorally when they voted, given their motivations for the vote and their beliefs at the time. That includes both the Senators who voted against and the Senators who voted for the confirmation, probably jumping to conclusions. But I do not have conclusive evidence for any given senator. Whether a behavior is immoral depends on the situation of a person, the available info, including predictable and predicted consequences of their actions, etc.

You have made every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury or of the senate for not nailing him to the fucking wall for it.

The claim that I made "every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury" is false. You did not even asked about the morality of BK's actions in the post I was replying to - or, for that matter, any other.

As for the second claim (i.e., about the Senate), I didn't "make every attempt": I just explain why I simply do not and will not make statements condemning the Senate for immoral behavior, because the Senate is not the kind of thing capable of immoral behavior. Individual senators are, and I also explained that I wasn't going to accuse without conclusive evidence. It is morally unacceptable.

Did he lie? Fuck yes he did. Repeatedly. About many things.

He lied about the meaning of "boofing". He probably lied about something else. I have not seen conclusive evidence of other individual lies. I have seen plenty of leftists jumping to conclusions about that.

Should the senate have nailed him to the wall over those lies? Fuck yes they should have.

The Senate is not the sort of entity that has moral obligations.
As to what each senator should have done, probably most should have voted against him for that reason, though there were other sufficient reasons.

Your refusal to judge them directly and unambiguously for the fact of their dereliction of obligations, and further your inability to observe that yes, there is an obligation to require a JUDGE to not perjur himself in his own job interview, s speaks volumes.

I refuse to condemn any individual person without conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. As for the dereliction of their obligations, are you talking moral or legal obligations?
If it's legal obligations, what law are you talking about?
If it's moral obligations, again, probably, but I refuse to condemn people on "probably".

All you had to do was say "yes, I believe he perjured himself, no, the senate should not have confirmed him without investigation of that perjury; this means that the confirmation was kinda fucky."

I repeatedly said that Kavanaugh lied and agreed that he committed perjury. The Senate is not a person, and has no obligations. Individual senators probably should not have confirm him regardless of whether there is a previous investigation, since there were sufficient evidence.

Your failure to acknowledge the clear as day facts of the perjury casting a pall on the republicans who tacitly allowed it is entirely the reason I think you are dissembling

You're again jumping to conclusions, and again condemning a person (in this case, me), without conclusive evidence - or anything remotely like that.

It is garbage to opine that a body doesn't have an obligation. You are a body of cells. It is not your individual cells that hold ethical obligations, it is the body. Aggregate an corporate entities have ethical obligations for the same reason individuals do.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

No, you're the one misrepresenting my posts. I invite readers to take a look at the exchange. And I don't want to argue to argue. I argue to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and to defend myself from the very negative and unwarranted claims or implications you make.

- - - Updated - - -


It is, and a gross one as that.


Your claim was about an alleged duty of the Senate. Again, the Senate is not a person. It does not have moral duties. It cannot engage in dereliction of duty. Individual Senators have moral duties. Also, the Senate is not a person. It is not even capable of committing felonies, or misdemeanors. Individual senators are.

Now, was the behavior of the senators immoral?
Probably, most of them behaved immorally when they voted, given their motivations for the vote and their beliefs at the time. That includes both the Senators who voted against and the Senators who voted for the confirmation, probably jumping to conclusions. But I do not have conclusive evidence for any given senator. Whether a behavior is immoral depends on the situation of a person, the available info, including predictable and predicted consequences of their actions, etc.

You have made every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury or of the senate for not nailing him to the fucking wall for it.

The claim that I made "every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury" is false. You did not even asked about the morality of BK's actions in the post I was replying to - or, for that matter, any other.

As for the second claim (i.e., about the Senate), I didn't "make every attempt": I just explain why I simply do not and will not make statements condemning the Senate for immoral behavior, because the Senate is not the kind of thing capable of immoral behavior. Individual senators are, and I also explained that I wasn't going to accuse without conclusive evidence. It is morally unacceptable.

Did he lie? Fuck yes he did. Repeatedly. About many things.

He lied about the meaning of "boofing". He probably lied about something else. I have not seen conclusive evidence of other individual lies. I have seen plenty of leftists jumping to conclusions about that.

Should the senate have nailed him to the wall over those lies? Fuck yes they should have.

The Senate is not the sort of entity that has moral obligations.
As to what each senator should have done, probably most should have voted against him for that reason, though there were other sufficient reasons.

Your refusal to judge them directly and unambiguously for the fact of their dereliction of obligations, and further your inability to observe that yes, there is an obligation to require a JUDGE to not perjur himself in his own job interview, s speaks volumes.

I refuse to condemn any individual person without conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. As for the dereliction of their obligations, are you talking moral or legal obligations?
If it's legal obligations, what law are you talking about?
If it's moral obligations, again, probably, but I refuse to condemn people on "probably".

All you had to do was say "yes, I believe he perjured himself, no, the senate should not have confirmed him without investigation of that perjury; this means that the confirmation was kinda fucky."

I repeatedly said that Kavanaugh lied and agreed that he committed perjury. The Senate is not a person, and has no obligations. Individual senators probably should not have confirm him regardless of whether there is a previous investigation, since there were sufficient evidence.

Your failure to acknowledge the clear as day facts of the perjury casting a pall on the republicans who tacitly allowed it is entirely the reason I think you are dissembling

You're again jumping to conclusions, and again condemning a person (in this case, me), without conclusive evidence - or anything remotely like that.

It is garbage to opine that a body doesn't have an obligation. You are a body of cells. It is not your individual cells that hold ethical obligations, it is the body. Aggregate an corporate entities have ethical obligations for the same reason individuals do.

I never said or suggested that collections of things cannot have moral obligations. I said the Senate cannot have them. Individual senators have moral obligations regardless of whether they're collections of cells or souls, or whatever (they are not souls, but that is not the point). They have moral obligations because of the sort of mind they have. The Senate does not have a mind at all - not even a temporarily dormant or incapacitated one -, let alone the sort of mind required for moral obligations.

And more generally, no, corporate entities do not have moral obligations, because they do not have minds, let alone the sort of mind required for that. That's a bad metaphysics that results in group judgment, condemnation, etc., and things like that. It would be okay to say that a company, corporation, generally institution, etc., engaged in immoral behavior only if that is short for saying that some of the people who make the decisions in the company engaged in immoral behavior. But if that's the case, one has to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. I already gave you my answer about that. And it has nothing to do with whether the senators are Republican or Democrat (and no, the Republican or Democratic party are not moral agents, either. They have no obligations).

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you're the one misrepresenting my posts. I invite readers to take a look at the exchange. And I don't want to argue to argue. I argue to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and to defend myself from the very negative and unwarranted claims or implications you make.

- - - Updated - - -


It is, and a gross one as that.


Your claim was about an alleged duty of the Senate. Again, the Senate is not a person. It does not have moral duties. It cannot engage in dereliction of duty. Individual Senators have moral duties. Also, the Senate is not a person. It is not even capable of committing felonies, or misdemeanors. Individual senators are.

Now, was the behavior of the senators immoral?
Probably, most of them behaved immorally when they voted, given their motivations for the vote and their beliefs at the time. That includes both the Senators who voted against and the Senators who voted for the confirmation, probably jumping to conclusions. But I do not have conclusive evidence for any given senator. Whether a behavior is immoral depends on the situation of a person, the available info, including predictable and predicted consequences of their actions, etc.


The claim that I made "every attempt to distance yourself from making statements directly and unambiguously critical of BK for perjury" is false. You did not even asked about the morality of BK's actions in the post I was replying to - or, for that matter, any other.

As for the second claim (i.e., about the Senate), I didn't "make every attempt": I just explain why I simply do not and will not make statements condemning the Senate for immoral behavior, because the Senate is not the kind of thing capable of immoral behavior. Individual senators are, and I also explained that I wasn't going to accuse without conclusive evidence. It is morally unacceptable.

Did he lie? Fuck yes he did. Repeatedly. About many things.

He lied about the meaning of "boofing". He probably lied about something else. I have not seen conclusive evidence of other individual lies. I have seen plenty of leftists jumping to conclusions about that.

Should the senate have nailed him to the wall over those lies? Fuck yes they should have.

The Senate is not the sort of entity that has moral obligations.
As to what each senator should have done, probably most should have voted against him for that reason, though there were other sufficient reasons.

Your refusal to judge them directly and unambiguously for the fact of their dereliction of obligations, and further your inability to observe that yes, there is an obligation to require a JUDGE to not perjur himself in his own job interview, s speaks volumes.

I refuse to condemn any individual person without conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. As for the dereliction of their obligations, are you talking moral or legal obligations?
If it's legal obligations, what law are you talking about?
If it's moral obligations, again, probably, but I refuse to condemn people on "probably".

All you had to do was say "yes, I believe he perjured himself, no, the senate should not have confirmed him without investigation of that perjury; this means that the confirmation was kinda fucky."

I repeatedly said that Kavanaugh lied and agreed that he committed perjury. The Senate is not a person, and has no obligations. Individual senators probably should not have confirm him regardless of whether there is a previous investigation, since there were sufficient evidence.

Your failure to acknowledge the clear as day facts of the perjury casting a pall on the republicans who tacitly allowed it is entirely the reason I think you are dissembling

You're again jumping to conclusions, and again condemning a person (in this case, me), without conclusive evidence - or anything remotely like that.

It is garbage to opine that a body doesn't have an obligation. You are a body of cells. It is not your individual cells that hold ethical obligations, it is the body. Aggregate an corporate entities have ethical obligations for the same reason individuals do.

I never said or suggested that collections of things cannot have moral obligations. I said the Senate cannot have them. Individual senators have moral obligations regardless of whether they're collections of cells or souls, or whatever (they are not souls, but that is not the point). They have moral obligations because of the sort of mind they have. The Senate does not have a mind at all - not even a temporarily dormant or incapacitated one -, let alone the sort of mind required for moral obligations.

And more generally, no, corporate entities do not have moral obligations, because they do not have minds, let alone the sort of mind required for that. That's a bad metaphysics that results in group judgment, condemnation, etc., and things like that. It would be okay to say that a company, corporation, generally institution, etc., engaged in immoral behavior only if that is short for saying that some of the people who make the decisions in the company engaged in immoral behavior. But if that's the case, one has to consider the matter on a case-by-case basis. I already gave you my answer about that. And it has nothing to do with whether the senators are Republican or Democrat (and no, the Republican or Democratic party are not moral agents, either. They have no obligations).

Yes, the senate as a body DOES have ethical obligations, because it is composed of a communicative network partially responsible in aggregate for driving a body towards improved internal and external function with respect to other groups. Where, exactly, do you think consciousness comes from if not through existing as an interaction between communicative bodies, ones which are fundamentally responsible in aggregate for driving a body towards improved internal and external function with respect towards other groups...

Both exist as minds. Just because you don't have the experience of its consciousness does not mean that the entity doesn't exist, it just means that your existence is not exactly the existence of that whole.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

First, it is not the case that I admitted he committed perjury. I reckoned he did, on the basis of the available evidence. It was not an admission.

Second, I did not say I came back to "defend the character of your post". That is a misquote. Again, I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

Third, my coming back is not a red herring. What is important to me now (the reason I came back) is precisely what I said.

Fourth, how was the hearing a "sham"?


I reckoned he lied. I did not admit that. And the claim that I should not speak to that is unwarranted and false.

IF you believe he lied, AT ANY POINT in the hearing, YOU believe he perjored himself
IF you then believe that perjury is not acceptable behavior for a judge, YOU believe BK is not worthy to be a judge.
IF you then believe BK is not worthy to be a judge, YOU believe the senate hearing was derelict in its duty to reject him.

So IF you believe that he lied, THEN you (ought) believe that senate hearing was derelict in its duty reject him.

So, DO you so believe that the senate was derelict in their duties?

The Senate is not a person. It has no moral duties. Individual Senators do. Whether they behaved immorally depends on the Senator. I would need conclusive evidence in each case. Did they all know that "boofing" not mean that? What would have happened if they had voted differently, in terms of consequences, and in their assessment? Probably, most behaved immorally, for different reasons.
If you mean legal duties, I do not know of any law that says Senators must not confirm candidates that commit perjury. If you know of one, please let me know, but as far as I can tell, there was no law breaking on the part of any of the Senators.

Wait, you accept that perjury isn't a disqualifier?

Never mind, you've already answered that.

 

[Jarhyn]

First, it is not the case that I admitted he committed perjury. I reckoned he did, on the basis of the available evidence. It was not an admission.

Second, I did not say I came back to "defend the character of your post". That is a misquote. Again, I'm arguing to defend my posts from misrepresentation, and myself from negative claims and implications about me. I thought I was done with this thread, and that was a relief frankly, but came back to set the record straight after your "Even Angra admitted he perjured himself."

Third, my coming back is not a red herring. What is important to me now (the reason I came back) is precisely what I said.

Fourth, how was the hearing a "sham"?


I reckoned he lied. I did not admit that. And the claim that I should not speak to that is unwarranted and false.

IF you believe he lied, AT ANY POINT in the hearing, YOU believe he perjored himself
IF you then believe that perjury is not acceptable behavior for a judge, YOU believe BK is not worthy to be a judge.
IF you then believe BK is not worthy to be a judge, YOU believe the senate hearing was derelict in its duty to reject him.

So IF you believe that he lied, THEN you (ought) believe that senate hearing was derelict in its duty reject him.

So, DO you so believe that the senate was derelict in their duties?

The Senate is not a person. It has no moral duties. Individual Senators do. Whether they behaved immorally depends on the Senator. I would need conclusive evidence in each case. Did they all know that "boofing" not mean that? What would have happened if they had voted differently, in terms of consequences, and in their assessment? Probably, most behaved immorally, for different reasons.
If you mean legal duties, I do not know of any law that says Senators must not confirm candidates that commit perjury. If you know of one, please let me know, but as far as I can tell, there was no law breaking on the part of any of the Senators.

Wait, you accept that perjury isn't a disqualifier?

Never mind, you've already answered that.

Not to mention that these senators do not exist in a vacuum. The whole point is that they can communicate with each other. They can look up on urbandictionary. They can hear clearly spoken lies about what things meant when they were young adults. they have obligations to us to provide good laws and good direction and good comfirmations. They are as ethically responsible for their decisions as senators individually, and in aggregate. Decision making bodies are responsible for their decisions and have obligations to make decisions which serve the organism which they head, regardless of whether it is a body of cells or of people.

 

[angelo]

Completely off topic here i know, but being down under here in sunny Western Australia I wasn't aware that 33 out of 50 US states have Republican governors.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Completely off topic here i know, but being down under here in sunny Western Australia I wasn't aware that 33 out of 50 US states have Republican governors.

Well, Republicans have this sneaky little trick that they use. When elections come around, they actually go out and vote instead of staying at home and then bitching about the results later. It's fairly dirty pool on their part.