I know this will get the entire boart riled up but here we go.

Many many "pro-life" men have issues regarding women. When they do the calculus, they are quick to devalue women's rights against the rights of the unborn fetus. That is, they put the rights of the woman at a relatively low weight.

Consistent with this would be a sexual assault at an early age--if you don't think women mean very much, you assault one when drunk and inhibitions are down, and you place your hand over her mouth to silence any protest.

Bottom line: he probably did do it, but the intuitive reasoning behind why he probably did do it is problematic and political and not something it would be fair to apply to confirmation hearings.

This is the high IQ assessment, and is why you don't have law school professors speaking out in his defense.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850650)

Your comment just now is precisely why no ls profs are defending him.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850748)

Except ive tested the conturds on here befor eon "prolife" stuff and at the end of the day they just devalue the current status of women in society. It's as simple as that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850665)

His knee jerk reaction when seeing HRC was to mouth the word "bitch"

this was long before she was a presidential candidate, mind you.

The dude has some issues re women. Deep down in his sexual parts he has some contempt for them. I can tell you, he probably did it.

BUT, that's just the answer to why law profs aren't speaking out in his defense now. they think the same way.

They are high IQ enough to intuit that he probably did it, notwithstanding the need for fairness to prevail in any hearing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850691)

you should have said relatively lower weight. to believe pro-life men are against women and put their rights at a relatively low weight is just being a bitch. pro-lifers put the rights of an unborn baby above men's rights, too

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850727)

If the discussion is new to you, xo has a search function.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850730)

The ultimate conclusion was that pro life people discount the value of women relative to fetuses (among other things--there's also a resistence to certain aspects of modernity and what feminism has wrought). Pro abortion people valorize women's rights to a greater degree.

I really don't want to get into this again as it took about a dozen poasts of great length to work through this w people here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850764)

pro life = value life of unborn more than right of mother (or father) to end unborn's life

pro abortion = opposite

pro abortion types like to frame that as misogyny or "relatively low" or crap like that. that's bullshit and to the extent it's true, accusing the majority of the pro lifers to be like that is just being a disingenuous or inflammatory prick

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850790)

Im not saying pro lifers are rapists. Im saying pro lifers on balance discount the woman's rights against the fetuses.

Look, again, im not trying to provide something that you can take to the bank and fairly rely on in the same vein as "evidence" but that hunch is consistent with why LS profs aren't defending the guy.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850819)

I'm talking about correlations, you understand that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850888)

CR, and anyone who disagrees with this both hates women and also is an idiot who doesn't recognize genius when he (could only be a he) sees it. TY for your service brother.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36854965)

This behavior in high school and college has nothing to do with politics or likelihood of being pro life or pro choice or whatever. It has to do with drinking and the ability to hook up with girls. This is not like a 30 year old man who hates women trying to use them out of spite.

Fortunately a lot of men, even libs, understand this and privately admit this whole nonsense is insane. I can see why spaceporn does not though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850715)

they don't want to deal with the sanctimonious, illegitimate bullshit of the left

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850739)

there is no connection between how kids dealt with teenage hormones in the presence of alcohol and their politics as adults.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850742)

Hormones and kids and alcohol means doing it in some adults bed during a house party.

They don't mean covering a girls mouth w your hands so she cant protest while you feel her up, try to take her clothes off.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850756)

and gasping while a person on top of you is grabbing your boobs and the gasp being stifled by his drunken, sloppy kiss...

is a faulty memory manufactured by political pressure as an adult.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850776)

there is no correlation between being a sketchy drunk and politics either. Just as many people accused of sexual assault as adults are liberal as conservative.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850785)

I stand by what I said. I realize you've got too many cognitive biases on this subject to process what I said here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850789)

you think you can remember specific details of events from 30 years ago, but you probably cant.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850796)

Tell you what--ask a chick, any chick--if there is any possible way she would ever confuse being kissed with having a hand over her mouth to silence her. Report back. Thank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850849)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850878)

As for earl's IQ, he's not showing it in the way he's resisting the point I made--not because he's thought through any objections--it just doesn't sit right w him and "offends" his sense of equanimity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850839)

"Consistent with this would be a sexual assault at an early age--if you don't think women mean very much, you assault one when drunk and inhibitions are down, and you place your hand over her mouth to silence any protest."

I am saying, based on a SIGNIFICANT amount of experience with rich private school parties with people engaging in sketchy sexual practices all the time and all over the place, that this behavior is linked to popularity, alcohol and attractiveness in high school - not any propensity to become pro-life or otherwise conservative as an adult.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850865)

sophists.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36850740)

The dude has some issues re women. Deep down in his sexual parts he has some contempt for them. I can tell you, he probably did it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36854995)

Look, its just an observation. Spend yr life trying to minimize women's sexual rights...committing assault on a woman as a young man, consistent w that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4082474&forum_id=2#36855665)