Zow

Members
  • Content count

    30,768
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,778 Excellent

About Zow

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 05/21/1983

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Arizona
  • Interests
    Softball, not being chubby, making stuff about me

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Minnesota Vikings

Recent Profile Visitors

17,685 profile views
  1. How do you envision she’d be definitively proven to be lying? If it’s your position the affirmative from 35 years ago can’t ever be proven then the same would be true for the opposite. Also, as stated, she had no “day in court” available to her so not sure how your proposed solution would work. On the first point, I get the general public’s yearning for the presentation of evidence to be purely black and white in that there’s a good guy completely telling the truth and a bad guy blatantly lying. But it almost never, ever works that way. Generally, a trial is almost almost about whether the party with a burden of proof can meet that burden regarding a particular allegation of fact. In other words, the trier of fact isn’t tasked to definitely find who is lying. In that same vein a person can very well be truthfully testifying about something that actually isn’t true. That person could merely be making a mistake or that oerson’s mind may very well have stored the false memory as a real memory out of some sort of self preservation.
  2. Stealthy, thoughts on the Merrick Garland issue? I’m with you in that I despise these confirmation hearings and find them disgustingly partisan. Begrudgingly I actually agree with you that Kavanaugh should be confirmed. But how can you reconcile the total bull#### of Garland not even being given a chance? I find that even more despicable than the crap the Democrats are pulling here. The test is, after all, whether the nominee is qualified. That’s it. And Garland certainly is/was.
  3. Huh? Eyewitness testimony on its own frequently results in a jury finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Her accusation, if found by the trier of fact to be credible, is proof. While I’d love you on my class 2 DCAC trials and all that, a person’s credible firsthand eyewitness account is proof/evidence to some degree.
  4. Stealthy, while I don’t inherently disagree with you that false rape accusations should be punished harshly, there is a strong public policy reason for not doing so so as to not chill or deter truthful accusations from being brought forward.
  5. I haven’t been in that thread in forever as I found it boring. I’ll check it out.
  6. Oh, he’s so very often wrong and I find his arguments lacking. But I do believe he’s actually sincere.
  7. Is that a Donnie darko reference??
  8. I actually think stealthy is sincere in his posts and I give him credit for replying back to responses to his posts.
  9. I’m interpreting his post to be in the affirmative. He’s just qualifying the #### out of it by saying he won’t believe it to me true.
  10. Thoughts on Merrick Garland not even getting a hearing?
  11. Ohhh I definitely need you on a jury.
  12. We exist. It's just the Trump stuff overrides all discussion. Also, I have changed positions over time in my time here. I went from staunchly pro-life to now being pro-choice (in the sense that I think abortion should be legal). I've loosened quite a bit on single payer healthcare and other forms of welfare. However, I've been here a long time (13 years now I think?) and I've had more education and life experiences that also contributed to my changing mindset. But this place really has had a substantial impact on some of these changes. That said, I cannot say that there was a particular post or whatever to point to. It just took being open to an opposing viewpoints and multiple people presenting the opposing viewpoint in a rational way.