Yeah, I believe that is a cop-out. I get saying "I don't have all the information and news stories have conflicting reports and I want to be fair to both sides, etc." but I can't believe that anyone who has been following this story and applying their own set of biases and beliefs has their belief needle sitting right in the middle, especially on Ford where we've been inundated with stories for two weeks straight. Broaddrick, I never heard of until 2016 (Robert posted a thread if you want to see how opinions have moved) and I could understand someone saying they really don't have any details, haven't thought about it, but you've been posting on the Ford story pretty extensively. It strains credulity to think you have absolutely no opinion on her veracity.
Thank you Engineer, you clarified my thoughts nicely. I completely disagree with this. The inability of people to say "I don't know" is part of the problem and the reason that everyone is becoming more extreme
There are all sorts of things that could be true in either case. It is scientifically true that memories are very unreliable (in a non-political thread, we could perhaps talk about this)
- It may have happened much as the survivor says.
- It may have happened, but with another person as the attacker.
- The memory may have changed over the years, maybe merging with other memories (scientifically this is quite common).
- The survivor may have misjudged the intentions or have had a different interpretation of the events.
- The sincere memories of the survivor may be influenced by the expectations of people around her (scientifically this is also common).
- The survivor may be influenced by her own political hopes and feeling.
There is no way to know if this is completely true, or partially true, or untrue. There is no evidence, no corroborating witnesses and no way for me or you to know anything.
You may think that arriving at a absolutely certain conclusion based on your biases and feelings and filling in the details that you don't know based on your beliefs... I strongly disagree.
There is nothing wrong with saying... in the absence of any real evidence, I don't have a clue what happened.
The alternative is to have a liberal truth (that everyone with a liberal ideology is certain of) and a conservative truth (that everyone with a conservative ideology is certain of).
Having truth depend on partisan ideology doesn't seem right. I prefer to admit that, in truth, I have no way of knowing what really happened.