Woman Accuses Joe Biden Of Sexual Assault

[seer]

I think what that actually means seer, is that you should not automatically disbelieve what they say. If there is an obvious agenda involved, 30 years after the claimed event then that makes it suspicious.

No Jim, he said the assumption goes to the woman (you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real). And what obvious agenda does Biden's accuser have?

[Charles]

Clueless as usual.

The point is that we've always believed in the concept. That hasn't changed. But all of a sudden when the Democrat's presumptive presidential candidate faces accusations the Democrats are suddenly abandoning their declaration that all women are to be believed (the logical extension of which is therefore that the man is guilty until proven otherwise). That philosophy as well as demands that Kavanaugh "prove" his innocence were repeatedly expressed by those on the left.

If we take focus away from the biased presentation of what Democrats did (and the foolish assumption that ALL democrats though along the same lines in this case) you don't have to spend much time reading the fallacies and contradictions in this thread to note the irony when the posters like to claim they support innocent until proven guilty.

Moreover Biden set the standard which he should naturally follow that

""For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real, whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time. But nobody fails to understand that this is like jumping into a cauldron."

So according to Biden himself we should presume that she is telling the truth and that she was sexually assaulted by Biden until it can be proven he didn't. That's a stupid and even dangerous standard but it is the one you guys wanted.

Something or other about "You've made your bed, now lie in it."

Sorry but there is a logical fallacy in your statement and seer made the same error. I refer you to this post: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post723052

[seer]

Such a short statement and yet you manage to contradict yourself completely. It is very, very simple, seer. If an assumption can change (and you agree it can) it does not follow that Biden is guilty of sexual assault by his own standard. By his standard we are to listen to this woman starting of with the assumption she is telling the truth. It does not follow logically that if we start with that assumption, we cannot change it. That is the critical part you keep missing. Of course her statement should be evaluated and Biden should be allowed to defend himself. That might change the assumption Biden told us to start of with. You see? Really, really simple.

Charles, no - how does Biden defend himself if it is she said he said? Doesn't the presumption go to the woman? But I'm not just speaking of Biden but the whole "believe all women" thing.

[Charles]

Charles, no - how does Biden defend himself if it is she said he said? Doesn't the presumption go to the woman? But I'm not just speaking of Biden but the whole "believe all women" thing.

Again, use your logic, seer. The fact that I listen to her with the presumption she is telling the truth does not mean I cannot change that presumption. And it does not even follow logically that I have to believe less in Biden. You guys are fooling around in logical fallacies because you would like to conclude what simply does not follow in this case.

[seer]

Again, use your logic, seer. The fact that I listen to her with the presumption she is telling the truth does not mean I cannot change that presumption. And it does not even follow logically that I have to believe less in Biden. You guys are fooling around in logical fallacies because you would like to conclude what simply does not follow in this case.

Nonsense Charles, if you are assuming the woman to be telling the truth how does Biden defend himself (it was only those two involved)? There should be no assumption, the right thing is to be neutral. And Charles it was not us who started the "believe all women" thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

[rogue06]

Nonsense Charles, if you are assuming the woman to be telling the truth how does Biden defend himself (it was only those two involved)? There should be no assumption, the right thing is to be neutral. And Charles it was not us who started the "believe all women" thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

Unlike with Ford and Kavanaugh, this woman told people about it at the time, which has apparently been confirmed, and says she filed a complaint, which has not been confirmed so far that I know.

[Charles]

Nonsense Charles, if you are assuming the woman to be telling the truth how does Biden defend himself (it was only those two involved)? There should be no assumption, the right thing is to be neutral. And Charles it was not us who started the "believe all women" thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Believe_women

So, you still fail to see that starting of with a presumption that someone is telling the truth does not force you to continue to believe so. I wonder why it is so hard for you to accept that very basic logical fact. I have pointed it out several times now.

[seer]

So, you still fail to see that starting of with a presumption that someone is telling the truth does not force you to continue to believe so. I wonder why it is so hard for you to accept that very basic logical fact. I have pointed it out several times now.

What I'm saying Charles is that we should not automatically assume that the woman is telling the truth. We should be neutral. Is that is so hard for you to accept? Believe all women is no more rational than believe all men.

[JimL]

No Jim, he said the assumption goes to the woman (you’ve got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she’s talking about is real). And what obvious agenda does Biden's accuser have?

I don't care what Biden said, one should take any accusation seriously, which is probably what Biden meant by presume, as in presume she's telling the truth. As for the agenda, think about it, it's 30 years after the supposed event and Biden is running for president.

[seer]

I don't care what Biden said, one should take any accusation seriously, which is probably what Biden meant by presume, as in presume she's telling the truth. As for the agenda, think about it, it's 30 years after the supposed event and Biden is running for president.

You mean like 35 years after the event with Kavanaugh?

[rogue06]

You mean like 35 years after the event with Kavanaugh?

It's fun watching them continue to dig the hole deeper and deeper defending their hypocritical double standard.

00000000000000ars3k.gif

[rogue06]

Looks like there's more than just his former Senate aide and insisting on swimming naked in front of female Secret Service agents (even after being informed it made them uncomfortable)

The rabidly right wing Huffington Post reported that Reade is only one of eight women to accuse Biden of sexual assault.

Last April, Reade was one of eight women to accuse the former vice president of inappropriate touching. Reade told the Intercept’s Ryan Grim this week that she only told the media part of her story at the time because she received an onslaught of harassment that instantly quieted her.

Don't know if any of them are credible but the #MeToo movement taught us that really does not matter.

[JimL]

You mean like 35 years after the event with Kavanaugh?

Kavanaugh was going through a confirmation process. Do you understand the difference. In order to be confirmed to a lifetime position of power, it's the responsibility of Congress to investigate such allegations. Everyone has their personal opinions as to the authenticity of an accustion, whether it be the accusation against Biden or Kavanaugh. Don't try to pretend that you were neutral concerning Kavanaugh and his accuser.
I have my opinion in both cases, but I'm open to any evidence that might change my opinion or prove my opinion wrong. Does this accuser have any evidence as to the veracity of her 30 year after the fact claim whatsoever, if so I haven't heard it.

[rogue06]

Kavanaugh was going through a confirmation process. Do you understand the difference. In order to be confirmed to a lifetime position of power, it's the responsibility of Congress to investigate such allegations. Everyone has their personal opinions as to the authenticity of an accustion, whether it be the accusation against Biden or Kavanaugh. Don't try to pretend that you were neutral concerning Kavanaugh and his accuser.

The power that any federal judge including a single SCOTUS justice has is paltry compared to that wielded by a president.

I have my opinion in both cases, but I'm open to any evidence that might change my opinion or prove my opinion wrong. Does this accuser have any evidence as to the veracity of her 30 year after the fact claim whatsoever, if so I haven't heard it.

The MSM has been for the most part determinedly ignoring this. Now with the Chicom coronavirus that's understandable, but this story has been out there for a year (April last year) so the only explanation is that they've been spiking it.

As for credibility... she's certainly got more than Ford ever did -- but that's setting an awfully low bar. So far all I've heard is that people have confirmed that she told them back when it happened and she says she filed a complaint but so far there hasn't been any evidence of that produced.

[seer]

Kavanaugh was going through a confirmation process. Do you understand the difference. In order to be confirmed to a lifetime position of power, it's the responsibility of Congress to investigate such allegations. Everyone has their personal opinions as to the authenticity of an accustion, whether it be the accusation against Biden or Kavanaugh. Don't try to pretend that you were neutral concerning Kavanaugh and his accuser.
I have my opinion in both cases, but I'm open to any evidence that might change my opinion or prove my opinion wrong. Does this accuser have any evidence as to the veracity of her 30 year after the fact claim whatsoever, if so I haven't heard it.

And Ford didn't have any evidence against Kavanaugh either - but if I remember you believed her - didn't you?