SurvivingInfidelity.com^®

I expect you'll give me credit for not accepting accusations without sufficient evidence.

Of course. But for someone else, it might not be sufficient. And that position doesn’t make them anti-woman or not supportive of victims, etc. Everyone has their own way to look at things and it doesn’t mean someone else’s is wrong or worse. That’s my whole issue. My wife stated an opinion which was fairly innocuous and understandable and was called out for it because others had a different views and theirs was somehow “right” and the only acceptable position while hers was not just “wrong” but she, a victim and the mother of victims, was labeled as anti...herself and her daughters I guess. That’s wrong. Plain and simple. I don’t expect people to look at things the same way - heck, just read this site any day of the week for proof of that - but folks should respect that other people may have a different point of view without ascribing nefarious motives or calling them names.

But what if I have nefarious motives and names?

But what if I have nefarious motives and names?

Would that include crop dusting? Drop an SBD into the forum thread and run?

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."

- William Shakespeare

"A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."

- William Shakespeare

Funny that quote seems like a rephrase of Aristotle. Never put 2 and 2 together.

Shakespeare? Too cultured for the likes of me.

I prefer Danny Kaye.

But I’m proud to recall that in no time at all

I made a fool of myself!

The Social Justice Warrior crowd wants to remake society. But some of the things they want to remake are the very best parts of Western culture. Things like due process and other criminal justice system protections, freedom of speech, healthy (i.e., non-warlike) nationalism, meritocracy, individualism.

They do so because (1) our public school system somehow hasn’t successfully conveyed how these protections and paradigms came to be and (2) because they tend to use emotion, not logic, to guide themselves through life.

An emoter might say that a nominee should be confirmed or not confirmed based on no facts whatsoever: “The nominee is bad because: Emotion.” A thinker would look at provable facts: “The nominee is bad because it can be shown that they lied under oath in far less salacious matters.”

But some of the things they want to remake are the very best parts of Western culture. Things like due process and other criminal justice system protections, freedom of speech, healthy (i.e., non-warlike) nationalism, meritocracy, individualism.

The 'House Un-American Activity Committee' and the McCarran Committee were active when I was growing up. They were pretty committed to stifling free speech and the Constitution.

In College (started in the early '60s) I was pretty damned frustrated by US racism, US China policy, and the Viet Nam war. Are you aware there were thousands of violent attacks against people known to be against the war in Viet Nam, and that doesn't include the thousands of attacks against people in favor or racial equality, only the most violent of which made the national news? Thousands. With impunity, except for the most prominent. That was a way of stifling free speech - oh, and life for 100s of people. These attacks were totally against free speech and were definite violations of due process of law.

Noting only the excess of anti-racist and anti-violence against women folks is pretty selective. Attacking them as something new is downright wrong.

**********

I see public education not getting the resources needed. At the same time, lots of their products today know a hell of a lot more than I did when I graduated from HS with an excellent record and entree into a very well-thought of college.

Maybe even the average HS grad today knows a hell of a lot more than I did.

There is a book called The Rise of the Meritocracy by a Michael Young. It's 70 years old this year. It's illuminating.

******

Walloped, I didn't put up straw men, although I can see why you think I did. I'm genuinely interested in responses, if they're related to principles, and not to any recent political decisions.

The 'House Un-American Activity Committee' and the McCarran Committee were active when I was growing up. They were pretty committed to stifling free speech and the Constitution.

And they too, made accusations without evidence that destroyed peoples lives.

These attacks were totally against free speech and were definite violations of due process of law.

Noting only the excess of anti-racist and anti-violence against women folks is pretty selective. Attacking them as something new is downright wrong.

And what they did in the 60s was anything but the rule of law - it was the rule of the mob, just disguised as the (local) government (see: Emmett Till).

There is a book called The Rise of the Meritocracy by a Michael Young. It's 70 years old this year. It's illuminating.

Quite odd that you think basing peoples advancement in society based on their skill and achievement as somehow a bad thing. What do you propose? The old class/caste systems - where if you are born into a class you stay there?

That's worse. By far. Ask every single immigrant who's come to America.

And this:

A man is accused of doing a terrible thing. It's impossible to know if he actually did it, but in the investigation he lied about a lot of little things. He attacked the people who question him. But in the end, you have to give him a pass on the big thing.

Consider a different man under the same circumstances. He denies the big thing, but says that he was not an exemplary guy through such and such a time, but after that time he's done his best to make up for his transgressions, and he can back that up with evidence.

Which of those 2 men would you want to rely on?

wasn't really a strawman argument - it was a false dilemma (A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option.).

But to answer your question: neither.

Unless you can PROVE someone did something - you can't make a judgement as to whether they did or did not. You may say they were dissembling, and liars, but in the end you can't answer the question of whether they did or did not.

And the rule of law says we don't convict people of crimes just because we don't like them - See McCarthy.

[This message edited by WornDown at 7:13 PM, October 8th (Monday)]

Eyes on the prize gentlemen. What's the prize here?

Rape=bad... Check.

Sexual assault=bad... Check.

False allegations=bad... Check.

No one is arguing against any of these 3 points.

Am I missing something here?

OK let's quit thinking that we are trying to send judge k. to JAIL! What we had been saying and are still saying is that due to the allegations of attempted rape, that had NOT been investigated thoroughly, meant that without serious investigation, he should NOT be given a seat on the highest court in the land that is a LIFETIME APPOINTMENT!!!!!!

I do not consider it an investigation if it's time was limited or the witness list is only allowed to talk to "certain people". It was a "cover investigation.

This is NOT the first "sexual predator" the the "family values" crowd has put on the court it is the second "clarence thomas' was the first!!!

To all of you that think promotion to the highest court in the land should rest on the same standards as a criminal investigation leading to a JAIL TERM means that you put party above country!!! If he wasn't needed to overturn a case coming up why was the investigation so LIMITED!!!

The investigation was so rushed for "advantage" ONLY!! If they wanted a believable investigation not a phony 1 week whitewash!!

I guess that corruption is good for the country in your view!!

Neither he nor clarence will ever be respected jurists!! Their rulings will ALWAYS be dissed as political minded NOT fair rulings based on interpretation of the LAW!!

Again - All those "witnesses" you claim were never interviewed?

How many were contacted by ABC/NBC/CBS/WaPo/NYTimes/etc. and had nothing to say, didn't corroborate any of the accusers' stories? Answer: All

Or were they just waiting to be compelled by a grand jury to testify? Is that what you are insinuating? That they couldn't/wouldn't talk to anyone unless they have a badge?

NBC News' Swetnick statement:

"NBC News was unable to independently corroborate Swetnick's claims and has not spoken with anyone who says they saw Swetnick at parties with Brett Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh has said he does not know Swetnick and has called her claims a farce.

Swetnick provided NBC News with the names of four friends who she said went to the parties with her. One is deceased, while two others did not respond to requests for comment. A fourth told NBC News he didn't remember Swetnick."

NYTimes on New Yorker article:

"“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”"

So after all that (dozens of people interviewed), your view is that ONLY the FBI could have found someone, anyone, who could have corroborated any of their stories?

What exactly were you expecting the FBI to do?

[This message edited by WornDown at 8:21 AM, October 9th (Tuesday)]

Man! I have been ever so fucking happy to stay the fuck out of this whole god damn discussion. However....

I feel compelled to point out that the fine admistrators and moderators of this wonderful site have always been kind enough to give us a shit ton of leeway here on the Betrayed Men’s Thread.

One of the main reasons that we have traditionally been granted said leeway is due to the excellent job we BH’s have always done of policing our own damn selves here.

In light of that fact, and in consideration of the appreciation I think we all should have for that previously mentioned leeway..

I would like to kindly and respectfully suggest that y’all stop the political discussion at this point before you end up inadvertently fucking up and losing that precious leeway for all the rest of us glorious bastards that enjoy posting here.

Or do any of you actually fucking think you are going to change one another’s minds at this point in the debate? Perhaps once you all are done settling this to everyone’s satisfaction y’all can move on to working out that whole Palestine/Israel thing? I’ve heard that they could use some wise cooler heads on that one as well.

Rape=bad... Check.

Sexual assault=bad... Check.

False allegations=bad... Check.

No one is arguing against any of these 3 points.

Am I missing something here?

You’re missing the no due process for the accused=bad part.

I would like to kindly and respectfully suggest that y’all stop the political discussion at this point before you end up inadvertently fucking up and losing that precious leeway for all the rest of us glorious bastards that enjoy posting here.

Corroborating for this witness.

So it's definitely a fact now.

I don't know if the have 2 members of SCOTUS who assaulted or harassed anyone, but the Congressional Record documents lies told by various candidates for appointments.

What bothers me about the last weeks is that people rushed to judgment without taking just a little more time to think clearly and use more of the resources that are easily available.

**********************

Not a false choice, WD. We faced it last week.

And I suggest that we make immense numbers of decisions without proof. In fact, I bet we make the vast majority of our decisions without proof.

**********************

Not a false choice, WD. We faced it last week.

And I suggest that we make immense numbers of decisions without proof. In fact, I bet we make the vast majority of our decisions without proof.

It was a false choice: You gave two equally bad situations and said we had to pick one. You made the assumption that we HAVE to believe one or the other. Not true.

In fact, that is why our legal system (and our society's basis of "fair") is set up the way it is. If you don't believe either side, tie goes to the defendant, ie, the burden to prove their "truth" is on the plaintiff, not the defendant.

Yes, we do make a lot of decisions without 100% information (aka, proof), but we almost always make decisions with SOME KIND OF information, no?

Okay, fellas, enough is enough. Let's talk about guy stuff. My xWLTGF, during the "peak" of our relationship, made a plaster cast of my Johnson. Strangely, she insisted on keeping it after she dumped me. As far as I know, it still sits on the headboard of her bed, which was our bed that we bought together.

But I digress. I'm here to tell you about how to make one. You'll need:

- plaster of paris (obviously)

- alginate (this is a material dentists use to make molds of teeth - you get it at a dental supply store)

- non-stick oven spray (like Pam)

- A helpful partner

First, you want to tend to the manscape around your manly bits. This is mainly to avoid ripping out the short and curlies upon removal of the mold. More on that later.

Second, get yourself into a state of full attention. This is where the sexy helper comes in. As much oral attention as possible, and it needs to be continued until the alginate has set. While doing this, mix up the alginate to the consistency of whipped cream.

Third, spray the affected area liberally with Pam. DO NOT NEGLECT THE BROWNEYE REGION!! I cannot emphasize this point enough, and I learned this from bitter personal experience. In my case, I failed to consider that the alginate will run down into Herr Buttcrack and adhere to da hair. Gents, let me tell you, ripping a strip of duct tape from that tender region is almost certain to bring tears to the eyes of even the most hardened hardass.

Then, as your helper keeps the mushroom tip well attended, she schmears the alginate around the stones, and then the base of the pillar. Your nether region will look a bit like a white, lathery volcano, with a one-eyed serpent sticking out of the top. Or, rather, sort of like the iconic photo on the cover of the LP record "Whipped Cream and Other Delights" by Herb Albert and the Tijuana Brass. She leaves the last 1/2 exposed for more playtime to keep Sir Topham Hat turgid until the alginate begins to set.

As it gets close to setting, coat the tip. Here is where you get creative to maintain the turgid state. No direct stimulation is possible. In my case, my GF leaned over and backed that thing up into my face and mushed me all up in it. Seriously, this is one of my things. I had no trouble. But you could watch porn, or whatever gets your motor revving.

When the alginate has set, it is kind of like a floppy rubber mask. You can carefully peel it back and off. If you used enough Pam, it won't stick to anything. If you didn't use enough Pam, brother, I cry for you. And believe me, when I realized with horror that mine was well adhered to the foliage in my browneye region, and when GF laughed as she ripped it off, I cried for me.

Place it end down in a deep bowl or vase, filled with Styrofoam peanuts to support it. Fill it with plaster. Let it sit until the plaster is set.

You'll have to then cut away the mold. You can only use it once. Voila.

[This message edited by Butforthegrace at 11:12 AM, October 10th (Wednesday)]

Please tell me that you made this into a YouTube (or is that a “Your Tube”?) video.