Kamala Harris Caught LYING About What Judge Kavanaugh Said

[Cisero]

Deliberately CHANGING A QUOTE to totally misrepresent what was said, IS A LIE.


Nice dance moves.

It is a lie, never said otherwise. However, I don't think it's a "big" lie. At least, not compared to the numerous others.

 

[USViking]

Watching the entire video, I don't see that anything changes. He wasn't quoting them directly, he was paraphrasing, but used their same language. Analogous example:

I hear a white man call an Arab Muslim a "sand-nigger" before shooting him. When speaking to the police afterward, I repeat the man's exact words from start to finish as I recall them. That's disquotational speech, and not necessarily indicative of my views. But if I use the same word merely paraphrasing (i.e. when I could have said "I heard the guy say to the victim" something like "x"), then it is me actually using the term "sand-nigger."

Sounds like Kavanaugh thinks at least some forms of birth control are like abortion.

RU-486 and IUDs are abortion-inducing.

And surely it may be taken for granted that Kavanaugh knows that most (all?) other contraceptive drugs are not abortion-inducing, and that most (all?) other contraceptive devices are not abortion-inducing, either.

 

[ashurbanipal]

RU-486 and IUDs are abortion-inducing.

And surely it may be taken for granted that Kavanaugh knows that most (all?) other contraceptive drugs are not abortion-inducing, and that most (all?) other contraceptive devices are not abortion-inducing, either.

I think the point is that such surely cannot be taken for granted. Based on what I've read of Kavanaugh, I'm not remotely sure he thinks any such thing. The exception in question was for birth control pills. The worry is that if Kavanaugh is seated, a challenge to Roe v. Wade will make its way to the court, and that decision will be overturned. And in states that then move to ban abortion, these forms of birth control will also be banned, leaving women with practically no options they may take for themselves except a diaphragm. And there's some propaganda circulating that barrier methods should also be considered abortion-inducing.

I've lived in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Texas, and had contact with a number of anti-abortion groups. For rather a few, their explicit goals are the complete banning of all abortions and all forms of birth control, condoms and diaphragms included. Abstinence only, by force of law. For reasons that I simply cannot fathom, they want to return to the days of syphilis colonies and homes for fallen women.

 

[ashurbanipal]

It is a lie, never said otherwise. However, I don't think it's a "big" lie. At least, not compared to the numerous others.

No. Not a lie. Watch the video carefully, and think of analogous cases. He wasn't quoting directly. He was using the same term, indicating he agreed with their views.

 

[USViking]

(Reply# 28)

I think the point is that such surely cannot be taken for granted. Based on what I've read of Kavanaugh, I'm not remotely sure he thinks any such thing. The exception in question was for birth control pills.

I interpret what you say to mean that Kavanaugh thinks all BC methods except for pills are abortion-inducing. It is unlikely that someone of Kavanaugh's intelligence and education would make such a crude error, and if you have read otherwise please provide citation.

The worry is that if Kavanaugh is seated, a challenge to Roe v. Wade will make its way to the court, and that decision will be overturned.

Thanks, but I was able to figure this out for myself.

And in states that then move to ban abortion, these forms of birth control will also be banned, leaving women with practically no options they may take for themselves except a diaphragm. And there's some propaganda circulating that barrier methods should also be considered abortion-inducing

Roe applies only to surgical abortion.

Griswold v Connecticut ruled that the states may not ban other methods of BC. Those methods are safe as long as Griswold is intact.

I've lived in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Texas, and had contact with a number of anti-abortion groups. For rather a few, their explicit goals are the complete banning of all abortions and all forms of birth control, condoms and diaphragms included. Abstinence only, by force of law. For reasons that I simply cannot fathom, they want to return to the days of syphilis colonies and homes for fallen women.

What does “rather a few” mean? Whatever it means, your personal experience is anecdotal.

Non-anecdotally, polls affirm shows overwhelming approval of BC among all demographics:

See links:

2016- Pew Research Center: 4% of all U.S. adults think contraception is immoral.
NB 95% of Evangelicals and 89% of Catholics answer that using contraceptives is “Morally acceptable” or is “Not a moral issue”.

Roper Center: Reporting Gallup Polls 1959-1982 Public Attitudes about Birth Control
The Gallup polls cited above ask if it should be legal to supply BC “information”. This may be taken as proxy for approval of BC itself. Approval was 73% in 1959, and reached 90% in 1974, where it remained steadily through 1982. It is reasonable to assume there have been no significant fluctuations since.


I am among those who wish to see Kavanaugh's confirmation derailed. I also wish to see his sponsor removed from the office which he profanes. Favorable outcomes are best promoted by avoiding exaggeration, and IMO it is an exaggeration to suggest that Kavanaugh is a threat to the legal status of BC.

 

[DamnYankee]

Kamala Harris Caught LYING About What Judge Kavanaugh Said

Say it ain't so. I mean leftists don't lie, do they? ROTFL

I'm not surprised the left is using deception to fool their fellow kooks into believing Kavanaugh bad, he be GOP'er, he bad. And by the remarks on this thread from the left, it worked, they were fooled into believing Harris was telling the truth.

Unbelievable.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I interpret what you say to mean that Kavanaugh thinks all BC methods except for pills are abortion-inducing. It is unlikely that someone of Kavanaugh's intelligence and education would make such a crude error, and if you have read otherwise please provide citation.

Given that the bit you quoted mentioned birth control pills, and nothing else, why would you interpret what I said that way?

Thanks, but I was able to figure this out for myself.

I'm sure you see the fact, but I'm not so sure you grasp the significance of that fact.

Roe applies only to surgical abortion.

Sure. So what? When a decision is overturned by the same court that makes it, or a higher court, the overturning is itself a decision and usually accompanied by a memo decision with its own status as precedent. If Roe is overturned, the memo laying out the rationale for overturning it may well apply itself to any form of abortion...as understood by the majority of the court.

Griswold v Connecticut ruled that the states may not ban other methods of BC. Those methods are safe as long as Griswold is intact.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, and in that decision (i.e. to overturn) says something like "the evidence as it now exists shows that life begins during coitus, and therefore abortion is tantamount to murder..." or anything to that effect, Griswold will be out the window. Of course, it will take another legal challenge or two making their way to the Supreme Court to do so, but the groundwork for overturning all similar cases will be laid in one stroke.

What does “rather a few” mean?

Roughly two dozen groups of anywhere from ten to a thousand active members; in some communities, though, something like 90% of the populace in agreement.

Whatever it means, your personal experience is anecdotal.

So what?

Non-anecdotally, polls affirm shows overwhelming approval of BC among all demographics:

Non-anecdotally, polls (including the official one conducted on election day) showed overwhelming support of Hillary Clinton...but that hardly mattered in the end, did it? You're ignoring the plain fact that history shows us it is possible to re-engineer a consensus, and to impose something from above that a majorty--even a vast majority--of people in a republic do not want. Prohibition is a decent example--while there were no scientific polls conducted prior to 1920 on the subject, what data we do have is fairly univocal: people didn't want prohibition, or at best only wanted stronger regulations on hard and imported liquor. What they got was a monster that took 13 years to overcome.

I am among those who wish to see Kavanaugh's confirmation derailed. I also wish to see his sponsor removed from the office which he profanes. Favorable outcomes are best promoted by avoiding exaggeration, and IMO it is an exaggeration to suggest that Kavanaugh is a threat to the legal status of BC.

Depends on what you mean by "threat." If his view is that birth control pills are essentially a means of abortion, it's unlikely he's going to persuade other members of the court. But over time, the court has been getting more conservative, and these ideas may continue to gain traction. This is what I think you don't understand--political changes that appear to happen overnight are really simmering for years before the event (and such is the case with Trump's election).

 

[JackA]

Well, she is certainly shaping up as the ideal Dem candidate for 2020; much more attractive and charismatic than Hillary, has the preferred genitalia, and LIES THROUGH HER TEETH EVERY BIT AS WELL.

She posted a HIGHLY EDITED version of what Judge Kavanaugh actually said, to DELIBERATELY , COMPLETELY MISCHARACTERIZE IT:




Kamala Harris’s Big Kavanaugh Lie

( “Kavanaugh did not refer to contraceptives as ‘abortion-inducing drugs’ as his own view, he was summarizing Priests for Life’s case”)





Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) is the latest Democrat to jump on the deception shuttle to, she hopes, the White House in 2020. She tweeted an 11-second video of soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in which he says, “Filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objected to.”



The problem? Kavanaugh was answering a question about and specifically citing the language of a specific case involving Priests for Life.



Harris takes deceptive editing to jaw-droppingly unethical depths by saying that Kavanaugh’s language, which is not actually his language at all, is a “dog whistle” for, she asserts, “going after birth control.”



https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/09/kamala-harriss-big-kavanaugh-lie/

This is Kavanaugh's statement: “It was a technical matter of filing out a form in that case. But they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they, as a religious matter, objected to.” His statement on the surface accepts as a fact that the drugs are fairly described as "abortion-inducing", and that was the reason for objecting to them. He should have said "...make them complicit in the provision of drugs they claim are abortion-inducing". Possibly Harris was nit-picking. Possibly she caught Kavanaugh revealing his personal opinion. She didn't lie.

 

[USViking]

PART ONE OF REPLY (see reply #36 for part two)

Given that the bit you quoted mentioned birth control pills, and nothing else,

Totally incorrect:

I said: (reply# 27):
And surely it may be taken for granted that Kavanaugh knows that most (all?) other contraceptive drugs are not abortion-inducing, and that most (all?) other contraceptive devices are not abortion-inducing, either.

To which you answered:

(reply# 28):
I think the point is that such surely cannot be taken for granted. Based on what I've read of Kavanaugh, I'm not remotely sure he thinks any such thing.

why would you interpret what I said that way?

Because there is no other way to interpret it.

I'm sure you see the fact, but I'm not so sure you grasp the significance of that fact.

Anything you can grasp I can grasp better.

Sure. So what? When a decision is overturned by the same court that makes it, or a higher court, the overturning is itself a decision and usually accompanied by a memo decision with its own status as precedent. If Roe is overturned, the memo laying out the rationale for overturning it may well apply itself to any form of abortion...as understood by the majority of the court.

OK, I guess- if Roe is overturned all forms of abortion may become illegal.

If the Supreme Court overturns Roe, and in that decision (i.e. to overturn) says something like "the evidence as it now exists shows that life begins during coitus, and therefore abortion is tantamount to murder..." or anything to that effect, Griswold will be out the window. Of course, it will take another legal challenge or two making their way to the Supreme Court to do so, but the groundwork for overturning all similar cases will be laid in one stroke.

Not OK.

The correct terminology is that life begins at conception, at the moment the egg is fertilized.

The barrier methods and ovulation inhibitors covered by Griswold prevent conception- there is no life, no fertilized egg, to be aborted. Therefore Roe provides no groundwork for challenging those forms of BC, although it would for challenging RU-486 and IUDs.

Roughly two dozen groups of anywhere from ten to a thousand active members; in some communities, though, something like 90% of the populace in agreement.

Nationwide inference cannot be made except on the basis of scattered random samples taken from throughout the country. You did not know that?

So what?

Anecdotal evidence has no probative value. You did not know that?

Non-anecdotally, polls (including the official one conducted on election day) showed overwhelming support of Hillary Clinton...but that hardly mattered in the end, did it?

See link to the 10 polls conducted Nov 2- Nov 7 2016:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/polls.html

The predicted Clinton margin ranged from +6 to -2, an average of +3.8 which is much less than what should be considered “overwhelming” when taking into account such majorities as Johnson's in 1964 (+22%), Nixon's in 1972 (+23%) and Reagan's in 1984 (+18%).

I looked up the reported margin of error for 9 of the 10 polls (one did not report a margin) and found that 8/9 of the predicted Clinton margins were within the margin of error for the actual 2.09% Clinton plurality. Any outcome falling within the margin of error is statistically accurate.

Where the polls went wrong was in not making a much greater effort to gage the electorate in several swing states. That is sure to be corrected in 2020.

But moving back to the pro-birth control data I cited before: recall that BC approval has hovered at and past 90% for over 30 years. Say those polls are off by 10%. That still leaves an overwhelming 80% approval rate, and consequently I am going to close this topic of discussion by giving myself a Q.E.D.

 

[Grokmaster]

This is Kavanaugh's statement: “It was a technical matter of filing out a form in that case. But they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they, as a religious matter, objected to.” His statement on the surface accepts as a fact that the drugs are fairly described as "abortion-inducing", and that was the reason for objecting to them. He should have said "...make them complicit in the provision of drugs they claim are abortion-inducing". Possibly Harris was nit-picking. Possibly she caught Kavanaugh revealing his personal opinion. She didn't lie.

Yeah...and? SHE LIED about what he said. SHE DID LIE.

 

[USViking]

PART TWO OF REPLY

You're ignoring the plain fact that history shows us it is possible to re-engineer a consensus, and to impose something from above that a majority--even a vast majority--of people in a republic do not want. Prohibition is a decent example--while there were no scientific polls conducted prior to 1920 on the subject, what data we do have is fairly univocal: people didn't want prohibition, or at best only wanted stronger regulations on hard and imported liquor. What they got was a monster that took 13 years to overcome.

No, prohibition is not a decent example, see link (scroll about 1/2 way down):

Temperance and Prohibition in America: A Historical Overview

This cite and numerous others describe a building crescendo in favor of prohibition:

(from link):

Most of the dry victories came about through referenda, not legislative amendments. In 1906, only 3 states had prohibition; by 1913, there were 9, with campaigns under way in all the others. By 1916, there were 23 dry states, and in 17 of these states the measure was approved by the direct vote of the people.

And NB the quote above applied only to entire states; numerous wet states permitted local option and see map linked below for the fact that local option produced numerous local dry jurisdictions, including many in the northeast.

"Wet" and "Dry" territorial map of the United States, April 1, 1915

And NB the 65th Congress (1917-1919) included a decisive 70% of both Democrats and Republicans favoring prohibition:

Mapping Historical Votes: Prohibition Passes The House.

Those pro-prohibition congressmen did not get elected by hoodwinking their constituents, they got elected because most of their constituents approved of prohibition. Besides that you knew passage of a constitutional amendment required approval by 75% of the states legislatures, didn't you? It is incoherent to suggest, as you do, that such massive legislative majorities could have occurred in the face of majority popular opposition.

Depends on what you mean by "threat." If his view is that birth control pills are essentially a means of abortion, it's unlikely he's going to persuade other members of the court. But over time, the court has been getting more conservative, and these ideas may continue to gain traction. This is what I think you don't understand--political changes that appear to happen overnight are really simmering for years before the event (and such is the case with Trump's election).

Previously addressed and I am not going to comment again. There is no evidence at all that Kavanaugh views all BC pills as abortive.

And BTW I majored in Political Science (and English Lit) in college (Phi Beta Kappa). You have not taught me anything about politics in this thread, and you show no sign of being of being able to teach me anything.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Because there is no other way to interpret it.

You're missing the point. Here's what I wrote, which you quoted, in post #30:

I think the point is that such surely cannot be taken for granted. Based on what I've read of Kavanaugh, I'm not remotely sure he thinks any such thing. The exception in question was for birth control pills.

Being skeptical of some proposition P is not necessarily to assent to not-P. I think Kavanaugh's statement belies a belief that birth-control pills are not merely abortion-inducing (which they sometimes are), but that they are morally tantamount to getting an abortion. Whether he thinks that other forms of birth control are similarly morally tainted is anyone's guess--my point is that it cannot be taken for granted that he does not think so.

Anything you can grasp I can grasp better.

That's quite a foolish thing to say to someone you don't know.

The correct terminology is that life begins at conception, at the moment the egg is fertilized.

Hmmm...I was unaware that the Justices of the Supreme Court would consult you before formulating the language in their decisions. While you were getting that degree in English Lit and Political Science, you probably didn't have an opportunity to research archaic, but surviving, theories of human reproduction. Augustin's theory, which was current in the Catholic Church until just a few decades ago (and still gets support in some quarters) was that the act of coitus, with or without male ejaculation, creates life. But he had a different view of just what "life" means...and it's a view that rather a few people share, even today.

The barrier methods and ovulation inhibitors covered by Griswold prevent conception- there is no life, no fertilized egg, to be aborted. Therefore Roe provides no groundwork for challenging those forms of BC, although it would for challenging RU-486 and IUDs.

I agree...using definitions that are current now. But not everyone uses those definitions--and it's certainly possible that Kavanaugh himself does not.

Nationwide inference cannot be made except on the basis of scattered random samples taken from throughout the country. You did not know that?

No, I did not know that. This proposition is obviously false, and one cannot know some proposition that is false. But anyway, it's also irrelevant, as far as I can see. We aren't talking about a "nationwide inference."

Anecdotal evidence has no probative value. You did not know that?

No, I did not know that, for the same reasons as above--the proposition comprising your claim is false, and one cannot know a proposition that is false. Although, I'm also not sure what you mean by the phrase "probative value"--it's a term of art in the legal profession, but has other meanings as well. Nevertheless, on any of them, the claim turns out false.

Where the polls went wrong was in not making a much greater effort to gage the electorate in several swing states. That is sure to be corrected in 2020.

The point remains that, even on election day, various professional statisticians all tended to agree that it was very unlikely that Trump would win. But he did win. The point is that national will, conceived as the majority will of all citizens (or alternately, voters), can be overcome, and has been in history.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I am going to close this topic of discussion by giving myself a Q.E.D.

Hmmmm...really? A QED is not warranted here. It really couldn't possibly be, for a couple of reasons. QEDs were not declarations of victory in a debate, but rather an alert that, within some formal system of proof, the statement arrived at was the statement agreed upon at the beginning--QED just means "here is the thing we set out to prove," or roughly that (from the latin translation of the Greek huper estai dexein). You can never prove anything with statistics--not in the sense in which QED is typically used. If you understand how it was typically used, you'll realize your giving yourself a QED is a bit like showing up in a camoflage tuxedo for a white-tie event.

Those pro-prohibition congressmen did not get elected by hoodwinking their constituents

As far as I can tell, none of the stuff you've posted about this is relevant at all. What I said was that most people were in favor of stricter regulations, perhaps a ban on hard liquor, and on liquor imports--as far as we can tell from the polling data available at the time. And what the people got was a Constitutional ammendment banning all commerce in alcohol. The sheer size of the black markets that arose indicates that what people got is rather different from what they wanted. Rather like electing a President who claims to be strong on defense, but who then provokes war with Russia and China simultaneously. I can want a strong defense without necessarily wanting all out war.

they got elected because most of their constituents approved of prohibition. Besides that you knew passage of a constitutional amendment required approval by 75% of the states legislatures, didn't you? It is incoherent to suggest, as you do, that such massive legislative majorities could have occurred in the face of majority popular opposition.

How exactly is that incoherent?

Previously addressed and I am not going to comment again. There is no evidence at all that Kavanaugh views all BC pills as abortive.

Here's what I wrote:

Depends on what you mean by "threat." If his view is that birth control pills are essentially a means of abortion, it's unlikely he's going to persuade other members of the court. But over time, the court has been getting more conservative, and these ideas may continue to gain traction.

I don't see where you've addressed my claim just above at all. And I don't get why your comment that there is no evidence Kavanaugh views all birth control pills as abortive is relevant to that claim. There's no obvious way it's relevant. Kavanaugh's views on birth control pills have little to do with the encroachment of conservative, and in some cases reactionary, values on the Supreme Court. Also, see above with respect to doubting P not implying affirmation of not-P.

And BTW I majored in Political Science (and English Lit) in college (Phi Beta Kappa). You have not taught me anything about politics in this thread, and you show no sign of being of being able to teach me anything.

Why would you say this? Or more perspicuously, why feel the need to say it?

 

[USViking]

You're missing the point. Here's what I wrote, which you quoted, in post #30:...

I am not missing any point, and what follows the colon is a rehash of your groundless speculation previously addressed.

That's quite a foolish thing to say to someone you don't know.

I know you as well as I need to by taking measure of the quality of your posts.

Hmmm...I was unaware that the Justices of the Supreme Court would consult you before formulating the language in their decisions.

The SC is never going to say that life begins “at coitus”. It might say that it begins at conception.

While you were getting that degree in English Lit and Political Science, you probably didn't have an opportunity to research archaic, but surviving, theories of human reproduction. Augustin's theory, which was current in the Catholic Church until just a few decades ago (and still gets support in some quarters) was that the act of coitus, with or without male ejaculation, creates life.

I do not need English Lit and Political Science to detect that you have a mangled grasp of this subject.

It was known even in Old Testament times that intravaginal ejaculation was needed for conception- Google “Onan”. It is consequently untrue that Augustine or any other significant Christian theologian has ever subscribed to the ludicrous theory you put in their mouths.

But he had a different view of just what "life" means...and it's a view that rather a few people share, even today.

The Roman Catholic view is that life is a seamless condition that begins at the moment of conception.

I agree...using definitions that are current now. But not everyone uses those definitions--and it's certainly possible that Kavanaugh himself does not.

Previously addressed.

No, I did not know that. This proposition is obviously false, and one cannot know some proposition that is false.

The proposition is obviously true as a matter of the science of statistical sampling. You can obtain a nationwide inference by conducting a nationwide scientific poll. You cannot do so by conducting a four-state, non-random study.

But anyway, it's also irrelevant, as far as I can see. We aren't talking about a "nationwide inference."

In post #28 you implied on that in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Texas there was enough popular support to ban all forms all artificial BC if it was legal to do so. However, after rereading the exchange I agree that you have not implied anything about national support for such a ban.

No, I did not know that, for the same reasons as above--the proposition comprising your claim is false, and one cannot know a proposition that is false.

My claim is true. Rational Wiki expresses the matter nicely:

Anecdotal evidence (also proof by selected instances, or, more pejoratively, anecdata) is use of one or more anecdotes (specific instances of an event; stories) to either support or refute a claim. The use of anecdotal evidence to draw a conclusion is like using the NBA all-star teams to estimate the average height of Americans...

Anecdotal evidence is often used in politics, journalism, blogs and many other contexts to make or imply generalisations based on very limited and cherry-picked examples, rather than reliable statistical studies.

Although, I'm also not sure what you mean by the phrase "probative value"--it's a term of art in the legal profession, but has other meanings as well. Nevertheless, on any of them, the claim turns out false.

“Probative” means furnishing evidence or proof, or serving to test, try, or prove. It is as much my property as the legal profession's.

The point remains that, even on election day various professional statisticians all tended to agree that it was very unlikely that Trump would win. But he did win.

The polls did fine, but yeah, it was one of the worst days ever for the putative analysts. They mistook high probability for virtual certainly. Let's hope they learned their lesson. Since they don't like being an international laughingstock any more than the rest of us it is reasonable to expect they will make a serous effort to clean up their act.

The point is that national will, conceived as the majority will of all citizens (or alternately, voters), can be overcome, and has been in history.

Overcome by the Electoral College, a dubious feature of our system, but one we may never get rid of.

 

[Casper]

We've seen...many times...the Trump hating media and their echo chamber cut out a couple words or more and turn a perfectly reasonable Trump statement into a "BIG LIE".

Harris doesn't have a lock in Trump hating dishonesty, that's for sure.

BS Trump's Lies are all over Twitter and YouTube for all to see. Living in denial is unhealthy, just so ya know.

 

[USViking]

Hmmmm...really? A QED is not warranted here. It really couldn't possibly be, for a couple of reasons. QEDs were not declarations of victory in a debate, but rather an alert that, within some formal system of proof, the statement arrived at was the statement agreed upon at the beginning--QED just means "here is the thing we set out to prove," or roughly that (from the latin translation of the Greek huper estai dexein)... If you understand how it was typically used, you'll realize your giving yourself a QED is a bit like showing up in a camoflage tuxedo for a white-tie event.

Calm down. You should not let originative, creative, “atypical” usage upset you so much.

...You can never prove anything with statistics--not in the sense in which QED is typically used...

Oh?

So the statistics of modern science, which yield a titanic edifice, include no feature worthy of a QED? Not even a little QED? Come on.

As far as I can tell, none of the stuff you've posted about this is relevant at all. What I said was that most people were in favor of stricter regulations, perhaps a ban on hard liquor, and on liquor imports--as far as we can tell from the polling data available at the time.

Disingenuous.

The issue is the level of popular support for prohibition, and the historical voting data cited in my post #36 proves there was a strongly growing trend in favor of prohibition.

My summary of the data is worth repeating:

Most of the dry victories came about through referenda, not legislative amendments. In 1906, only 3 states had prohibition; by 1913, there were 9, with campaigns under way in all the others. By 1916, there were 23 dry states, and in 17 of these states the measure was approved by the direct vote of the people.

And what the people got was a Constitutional ammendment banning all commerce in alcohol. The sheer size of the black markets that arose indicates that what people got is rather different from what they wanted.

Inference from data cited above indicates that by 1920 support for prohibition likely surpassed 50%.

As for the black market, the markup on illegal alcohol may have been in the 1000s%, therefore large, indeed huge profits could have been generated by a low percentage of the population.

Rather like electing a President who claims to be strong on defense, but who then provokes war with Russia and China simultaneously. I can want a strong defense without necessarily wanting all out war.

Rather like the representatives of the people carrying out the will of the people.

How exactly is that incoherent?

Such massive defiance of the popular will would have been massively reported, and few people would have missed those reports.

...And I don't get why your comment that there is no evidence Kavanaugh views all birth control pills as abortive is relevant to that claim. There's no obvious way it's relevant...

Lack of evidence is not obviously relevant???

You place yourself in the dregs of intellectual society with that comment.

Why would you say this? Or more perspicuously, why feel the need to say it?

Just popping off.


Now, I am getting tired of this dialogue and may not continue.

Goodbye and QED.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I am not missing any point, and what follows the colon is a rehash of your groundless speculation previously addressed.

What was speculative about what I said? What I said (in reply to your interpretation that I think BK believes all forms of birth control are abortifacients) was:

1. The text you quoted, and interpretted that way, only mentioned birth control pills and

2. Doubting some proposition P does not commit one to belief that not-P.

Neither of those are speculative.

The SC is never going to say that life begins “at coitus”. It might say that it begins at conception.

You may be right, and I certainly hope they never do. My point was that it's possible, and with someone like Kavanaugh, it becomes a bit more possible.

I do not need English Lit and Political Science to detect that you have a mangled grasp of this subject.

It was known even in Old Testament times that intravaginal ejaculation was needed for conception- Google “Onan”. It is consequently untrue that Augustine or any other significant Christian theologian has ever subscribed to the ludicrous theory you put in their mouths.

The story of Onan is often assumed to have been about making babies, but a close reading reveals other possible meanings. Anyway, you've again missed the point--you might have attended a bit more carefully when I said that Augustin had a different definition of "life" than people typically do today. Augustin thought that any act of coitus resulted in the creation of a living spirit--which was not really an uncommon belief in the antique period, and one that has survived in various forms.

The Roman Catholic view is that life is a seamless condition that begins at the moment of conception.

OK, sure. How is that a reply to anything I've written?

You can obtain a nationwide inference by conducting a nationwide scientific poll. You cannot do so by conducting a four-state, non-random study.

Sure. But that's not what you wrote previously. What you wrote previous was:

Nationwide inference cannot be made except on the basis of scattered random samples taken from throughout the country.

This is logically equivalent to: Nationwide inference can only be made on the basis of scattered random samples taken from throughout the country. Which claim is clearly false.

In post #28 you implied on that in Oklahoma, Arkansas, Kansas, and Texas there was enough popular support to ban all forms all artificial BC if it was legal to do so. However, after rereading the exchange I agree that you have not implied anything about national support for such a ban.

Indeed, I'm not really saying anything about popular sentiment, or popular views, or the majority views or sentiment, nationwide. I'd be shocked if there was less than absolutely overwhelming support for at least some forms of birth control.

What I am saying is that there are views out there that all forms of BC should be banned, they're on the extreme wacky conservative end of the spectrum, and it does seem that they're gaining some ground. Kavanaugh, it appears to me, is in taint of at least some of those views. Furthermore, views change over time, and can be influenced to change. Therefore, whenever dangerous views appear, however little support they have, it's important to oppose them.

My claim is true.

No, it isn't. Anecdotal evidence is the only kind of evidence there is. If it's not probative, as you say, then no evidence is probative. But anyway, from your link:

In two instances, it is possible to use anecdotes non-fallaciously:

If you use one or more anecdotes to refute the claim that there are no instances of the event that the anecdote describes. This is not fallacious because one counterexample is all it takes to prove a universal rule false, or an existential rule true.

My claim was an existential claim--i.e. "there exist groups with these views; I know because I've had interactions with them."

 

[ashurbanipal]

“Probative” means furnishing evidence or proof, or serving to test, try, or prove. It is as much my property as the legal profession's.

Anecdotes, even under the framework described at your link, at least when there's no suspicion of lying or mistake, are "probative" with respect to existential claims.

Overcome by the Electoral College, a dubious feature of our system, but one we may never get rid of.

We don't even have to go there. What's the latest approval rating for Congress and for the President? What percentage of people think that Washington works for the 1%, and not the other 99%? Popular will may elect a politician, and that politician may then go on to do a bunch of stuff the electorate never wanted. And some who do that still get re-elected.

So the statistics of modern science, which yield a titanic edifice, include no feature worthy of a QED? Not even a little QED? Come on.

I will not come on. QED is a signal that, within a formal system, we've arrived at a statement that was agreed at the outset to be what we were looking for. Science is not a formal system, and could never be.

Disingenuous.

I don't see how. I merely repeated what I said the first time. None of the stuff at your link addresses my claim--it's mostly book reports woven into a narrative about support for Prohibition. But it doesn't say what, exactly, was meant by Prohibition, and what, exactly, people wanted their politicians to do. The issue I raised has nothing to do with popular support for prohibition, whatever prohibition means. It has to do with what, exactly, people wanted to see happen. And again, what they did not want, for the most part, was a complete ban on all alcohol. The majority view, as best we can determine, was that wine and beer could remain legal, provided it was regulated.

As for the black market, the markup on illegal alcohol may have been in the 1000s%, therefore large, indeed huge profits could have been generated by a low percentage of the population.

It's not just the size of the money in the black market. It's the geographic distribution. There were speakeasies in nearly every town in the U.S.

Such massive defiance of the popular will would have been massively reported, and few people would have missed those reports.

I asked you how a certain claim is incoherent. I don't think you grasp what incoherent means. You wrote:

It is incoherent to suggest, as you do, that such massive legislative majorities could have occurred in the face of majority popular opposition.

Tell me again, why is that claim--i.e. that legislative majorities, even very massive ones, could have occurred in the face of majority popular opposition--is incoherent. An incoherent proposition is one that simultaneously asserts some claim and also that claim's negation--"A and not-A" is an example.

Lack of evidence is not obviously relevant???

Not to a claim that has nothing to do with the kind of evidence of which there is a lack. Here, again, is the passage of mine in question:

Depends on what you mean by "threat." If his view is that birth control pills are essentially a means of abortion, it's unlikely he's going to persuade other members of the court. But over time, the court has been getting more conservative, and these ideas may continue to gain traction.

Kavanaugh's views about birth control are not relevant to any of the claims made therein.