Right, Penn State truthers argue that all 30 or whatever witnesses recounted repressed memories while under hypnosis. To the very word. Got a link?
You're a pip, Edith. A real pip.
OT: PSU and Rasir Bolton
- Thread starter HOF Coach
- Start date
You're a pip, Edith. A real pip.
Right, Penn State truthers argue that all 30 or whatever witnesses recounted repressed memories while under hypnosis. To the very word. Got a link?
You're a pip, Edith. A real pip.
To be fair, I read the PSU board often during the Sandusky trail, and MANY, MANY PSU fans on that Board argued this. It was at least half.
As if that stance itself isn't a potential HR issue and lawsuit?
Yes. They literally argue this exact thing. Go to John Ziegler’s JoePa blog. I’m not going to post the link.Right, Penn State truthers argue that all 30 or whatever witnesses recounted repressed memories while under hypnosis. To the very word. Got a link?
You're a pip, Edith. A real pip.
Sandusky wasn't convicted solely on the basis of repressed memories. McQueary is an eye witness. Matt Sandusky admitted he was abused.
All that Christine Blasey Ford has is her own repressed memory that she divulged during therapy. And anyone in the field will tell you that these memories are unreliable. You have the right to believe whatever you want though
Anyone can make the same argument as I am. It doesn't make the argument invalid because PSU lemmings used it. There's no proof that all Sandusky's victims testified based solely on repressed memories retrieved during therapy, so this analogy doesn't stand up.
In the case of Blasey "That's all I got" Ford, she has her memory and nothing else.. Not even close to the same situation as Sandusky. So I'm calling B.S. on this silliness.
Though Matt Sandusky never testified, you’re absolutely correct - the Sandusky victims who did testify did *not* recover their memories via repressed memory therapy. Of course, neither did Christine Blasey Ford. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-mishaps/201809/is-the-kavanaugh-sexual-assault-accusation-false-memory%3famp
https://www.pennlive.com/pennstate/...ncaa-transfer-portal-ray-bolton-explains.html
Just so we know, his father alluded to some sort of problems that were not resolved last March. So it’s not like they didn’t say it then.
Just so we know, his father alluded to some sort of problems that were not resolved last March. So it’s not like they didn’t say it then.
I came across this article when I was checking on what DT posted. This is just one psychologist's opinion in which he feels it's very possible she is accurately remembering Kavanaugh. But she did undergo a form of repressed memory therapy when she was seeing a therapist with her husband and suddenly recalled the alleged rape. It might be a real memory, but it's not reliable enough to have been addressed at Kavanaugh's hearing. The circumstances of her testimony are a legitimate concern and it's not a legitimate comparison to Sandusky supporters.
That’s just simply not true. Blasey Ford has maintained repeatedly that she has always remembered the assault, and told her husband that she had been assaulted years before disclosing the details in therapy. The argument that Blasey Ford only remembered the assault through repressed memory therapy is nothing more than a far-right conspiracy cooked up to defend Kavanaugh. Whether her testimony was accurate or whether the assault actually occurred in 1982 is a different argument.
Time does matter. The reason why is that our memories are not terribly good for the most part. When time elapses, facts, biases, illusions, often creep into our accounts of stories. And, real facts become much harder to prove as a result.
This is one of the main reasons why mostly all crimes and matters of civil liability have statutes of limitation. Because the further time moves away from an event, it is usually much, much harder to substantiate. This is especially true in matters between individuals without any physical documentation
For example, if you messed up your tax return X years ago and did not pay enough, we can always go back and look at the numbers and calculate. But, if you alleged that I punched you in the face with no one around, no pictures, etc. and then a year and a half passed until you went to the police, your story becomes very hard to prove.
Severe sexual assault (meaning, things like Blasey Ford alleges as opposed to the Frieden story) in general can cause a lot of mental fraying resulting in people taking a long time to even be able to recount the story without breaking down. We have scientific evidence on this matter. Unfortunately, with that time elapsed, things often become infinitely more hard to prove.
There has been a lot of discussion about Blasey Ford in this thread. She, as a person, did not seemingly lack any credibility. And, some of the treatment towards her personally when she testified by those asking her questions was incredibly poor.
However, an event 36 years in the past, with the first documentation of the event 30 years after it happened and a lot of people that stood on contradictory sides of what happened in itself is not a terribly credible story.
I am not denying her recounting of the facts, but just on a strictly evidence basis, she did not have much that would be substantive. A court case of no kind could ever be amounted against Kavanaugh with the facts in question and the time elapsed.
A Supreme Court Justice is a lifetime appointment to one of the most important positions in this country (and the world). It opens a person's entire life up to scrutiny. As a result, I think it was right for Blasey Ford to be heard. And, the fact that other accusers of similarly situated behavior by Kavanaugh stepped forward showed that he likely had a pattern of poor behavior around 35 years ago even if her memory was clouded by time (and others who made similar accusations in that period).
Then, the question turns to whether this is a person that should sit in such a prestigious, lifetime position. And, it is not an easy question morally though I think both sides of the argument are clear.
Stepping forward with an accusation of anything does not make the accusation credible. The facts surround the accusation make it credible. And, we certainly give some weight to the credibility of the person.
But, to the main point of my post, time means a lot. And, something with all of these situations where people either were or feel wronged is that when more time elapses, the story begins to become much less credible. Blasey Ford's accusations happened in a time when people were mostly conditioned to not come forward for such situations. Bolton's occurred when people have been conditioned to come forward.
It goes back to something that we talked about when Pat Narduzzi was under the scope, which is that we really need to teach kids from a very young age to assert themselves situation and report things when needed. It would/does prevent a lot of future issues though we see with this Bolton example that someone could do the right thing and still be brushed aside.
I wasn’t talking about recollection. Of course time can diminish memories and specifics. I was addressing meatheads saying things like “Why didn’t the victim report it at the time? Why did they wait so long?”
That's what she and her hubby say. Since there is no third party corroboration besides that which was divulged under therapy, I guess we all have to decide for ourselves. And maybe it wasn't specifically therapy for repressed memory, but instead a repressed memory that came out during therapy. Let this be a teachable moment then: Report criminal behavior when it occurs. See something. Say something.
She should have kept it to herself instead of creating the circus. And you can probably lay the blame on Feinstein's door for that.
I do not quite understand what you are saying. Can you elaborate more?
On the surface, I think asking why someone did not report something at the time and time elapsed are very fair questions. They speak as the recollection of the action, which directly affects credibility.
As I noted, mentally, sexual assault can be very difficult for a victim to report or even acknowledge. Unfortunately, that elapsed time does affect the credibility of the accusation in most cases (there is a big difference between waiting a week or month to report something versus years/decades of time). There will always be black and white cases, but more time generally causes more grey area.
When victims speak up from an incident that occurred in the past there are always those who try to dismiss it. They claim that the victim should have spoken up sooner. Cause if it had happened to them they’d have said something at the time for example.
And no it doesn’t necessarily lessen credibility. Victims of rape for example feel guilt and sometimes feel they’re partly responsible. Some victims are too scared to say anything.
I don’t disagree that the time lapse doesn’t have an potential impact. I’m saying that just because time lapses does not mean it didn’t happen. It seems pretty evident to me there are many people all over the place who feel if it wasn’t reported in whatever time they feel is acceptable, or what they would have done, it didn’t happen.
I generally agree with you on this. Time elapsed 100% does not mean that it did not happen. Victims can sometimes be deathly afraid to step forward for many reasons. And, people often puff up and say that they would have done something but who really knows what they would have done if placed in the same situation.
I disagree in the area that I think timing can be a legitimate question. And, by function of law, if you sit around too long, potential crimes and liability erase because you sat on your rights for too long. But once again, timing does not mean that an event did not occur. I think it comes down to facts. Unfortunately, in sexual crime cases, facts can be very difficult to prove.
It certainly makes it more difficult. Using rape again as an example it certainly eliminates being examined and using a rape kit. And unless the victim pulls a Lewinsky it essentially eliminates the possibility of any physical evidence. So again I wasn’t ever suggesting it couldn’t be a legitimate question. I guess maybe the best way to say it is that lapsed time is not disqualifying.
It’s not dangerous at all
Try not being an asshole -it’s really not any more complicated than that .
im opinionated and speak my find freely in large diverse settings throughout my professional career .
Weirdly I’ve never been accused of misogyny or racisms -
Closest was being discriminating in age - because I pointed out how long Someone took on delivery .
Which was quickly clarified with a discussion about performance and merit and how if physical accommodations need made , I’d provide them .
The only people afraid of being accused of racism , misogyny , etc are people who are afraid of being held accountable for their own flaws
“She should have kept it to herself” is a great attitude to have to keep assault victims quiet.
OK. At least this makes sense. Your last post was jumbled as hell. Was worried you were having issues.
Oh....and my behavior and record is pretty impeccable. So......yeah, I avoid situations that could put one into a situation that could be misread or misinterpreted.
If Dr.Ford's allegations are deemed "credible"by some, anyone, no matter how careful could be falsely accused of a sexual assault.
If credible includes no date, day, time, location, means of arrival and departure or corroboration, credible is a meaningless adjective.
It is a mere claim minus any substantiation.
All those believe the victims proponents would change their tune in an instant, if a groundless charge was lodged against them. I am sure they would feel details are necessary if they were the subject of the allegation.
Last edited:
Yeah I am not going down that rabbit hole. I hear ya. In fact, let's lock this thread, it ain't going to get any better nor are we going to resolve anything and it long has moved away from the original topic.
It's literally a textbook Title VII and state discrimination lawsuit, which is why I believe that no HR person would ever say that.
You're missing the point. At a place where I was once employed, a female was walking up the steps with a fellow employee (another female). They did not know I was behind them. She was angry about a decision that the boss had made that was going to affect her as well as other employees. Her comment was "I'll fix him. I'll file a sexual harassment charge." I don't believe she ever did but she was in my department. I stayed clear of her from that day on.
I had a sexual harassment case against me 15yrs ago. It was completely baseless, and cost us 12k to investigate....
However I am aware real sexual harassment is a huge huge problem the world over.
Each case needs viewed and decided on its own merits.
That applies to both matters sexual and matters racial.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Pitt QB Julian Dugger officially enters the transfer portal- Latest: ChiefJusticeMarshall
-
