[Badamson]

(11-19-2014 06:36 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 06:17 PM)Badamson Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 06:11 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

^^^

Cosby was never criminally charged with anything. He was never civilly sued for anything.

I don't care if 1500 people accuse him of something. If there were a basis to it, there would be cases filed against him.

Cosby is a powerful, successful, respected man. These women are nobodies. He is a target for every guttersnipe out there.

Fair enough, but actually he was civilly sued and settled out of court. His lawyer even had to amend the statement about past allegations being discredited to exclude the one made by this girl, as it would have violated terms of the settlement.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-cosby-settles-lawsuit/

This article said she went to the police a year later, but they didn't file charges.

I'm sure they didn't file charges because there was no evidence.

What possible evidence could she have brought to the civil trial then? Probably nothing but her big mouth.

Actually, there's a good chance he would have lost since 12 women came forward to testify(so 12 women's big mouths.) Once his lawyer realized he wasn't going to get the case easily dismissed, that's probably when he decided to settle.

Anyway, I've had fun debating with you guys, and I'm glad we had a civilized discussion on some very delicate subjects, so no hard feelings to any of you who disagreed with me. I guess we can agree to disagree, and I've pretty much said everything I wanted to say on the matter. Safe to say, if we're not persuading each other by now, it ain't going to happen.

I'll just leave you with this: Bill Cosby's spirited alpha defense

vs. Woody Allen's defense:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinio...s-out.html

One of these men I can support. The other, I can't even.

[placer]

From a criminal law standpoint, whether or not Bill Cosby raped these women is irrelevant. The statue of limitations (generally, 10 years) has expired for all of these rapes (the most recent events being alleged are from early 2004 or before). The only way any of these ladies could open up a criminal case is if they have DNA evidence from before 2001 (such as the dress Monica Lewinsky had). Since that is unlikely, the entire matter is a moot point.

I do not like how the SJW movement retroactively makes something a crime, and how they accuse someone of a heinous crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Kingsley Davis]

(11-19-2014 03:48 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

I wouldn't trust a single thing Janice Dickinson says. About anything.

https://soundcloud.com/howardstern/janic...by-in-2006

[Paracelsus]

(11-19-2014 08:45 PM)placer Wrote:  

I do not like how the SJW movement retroactively makes something a crime...

At the risk of Godwinning the debate, this was one of Hitler's tactics when he first came to power - to take down opponents for current crimes which were not illegal at the time they were 'committed'. It's taken hundreds of years for Western law to evolve to the point that you can only be charged with a crime which was illegal at the time you committed it. It's almost as important a protection as the presumption of innocence.

Quote:

and how they accuse someone of a heinous crime without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Strictly speaking it's only a court that requires proof beyond reasonable doubt before it can send a person to prison; in most civil courts under the Westminster the standard of proof required tends to be expressed more as "on the balance of probabilities", or "more likely than not", or unofficially, 51% sure.

On the other hand, this is why SJWs push so hard in the court of public opinion, because that particular jurisdiction requires zero proof and delivers arguably as bad if not worse results as a short prison term does. Although they never say it because they would immediately be dismissed as terrorists, SJWs hate the concept of having to prove any allegation they make in an objective, neutral forum (i.e. a civil or criminal court).

The other reason they hate it is because, more or less, a court is a theoretically level playing field: at the end of the day you have to present witnesses and permit 12 people (or a judge) to scrutinise their evidence. SJWs are basically guerrillas: they don't fight on their enemies' terms because their enemies would vaporise them if they did.

[Sherman]

Cosby needs to go on the offensive or else they or going to bury him. They are just piling on the attacks. The lesson here is that you have to fight back.

[Clemmo]

To the SJW's eyes. "You're guilty, until proven innocent". And they are now trying to destroy Bill Cosby's reputation.

[Dusty]

(11-19-2014 09:58 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Cosby needs to go on the offensive or else they or going to bury him. They are just piling on the attacks. The lesson here is that you have to fight back.

The problem is, he would have to admit he was smashing all these groupie bitches and he wasn't monogamous with his wife. That will hurt his reputation too (not with us, but with the masses).

[WestIndianArchie]

Not only did these people fuck up his new opportunity, they pressured TV Land to take his show off the air

http://www.chron.com/entertainment/telev...904052.php

So basically anyone associated with the show is gonna lose money off of unproven allegations.

WIA

[J DOE]

(11-19-2014 09:58 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Cosby needs to go on the offensive or else they or going to bury him. They are just piling on the attacks. The lesson here is that you have to fight back.

Does Cosby really need to go on the offensive? He's an old man with hundreds of millions of dollars. He's won at life. He doesn't really need fame or attention anymore. If I was him I'd ignore all of this and retire to an island, buy a mansion and move 20 young bad bitches in with me and never think about the matter again.

Also, Janice Dickinson wrote about sexual abuse by her father and talked about her father constantly. From what I understand her father vehemently denied the allegations. She's also had no problem talking about having sex with tons and tons of male celebrities and often puts them in an unflattering light. Why should I believe that she has some fear/reverence of Bill Cosby that she doesn't have for her father and all the other male celebrities.

It isn't particularly difficult for women to get men convicted on trumped up rape charges, this increases 100-fold when the accuser is a pretty white woman and the accused is a black man.

[WestIndianArchie]

(11-19-2014 11:23 PM)J DOE Wrote:  

Does Cosby really need to go on the offensive? He's an old man with hundreds of millions of dollars. He's won at life. He doesn't really need fame or attention anymore.

He still wants to work, as evidenced by his upcoming projects.

He's been silenced.

It's a shame the new French revolution didn't go after the rich and powerful.

WIA

[Samseau]

(11-19-2014 09:34 PM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

(11-19-2014 08:45 PM)placer Wrote:  

I do not like how the SJW movement retroactively makes something a crime...

At the risk of Godwinning the debate, this was one of Hitler's tactics when he first came to power - to take down opponents for current crimes which were not illegal at the time they were 'committed'. It's taken hundreds of years for Western law to evolve to the point that you can only be charged with a crime which was illegal at the time you committed it. It's almost as important a protection as the presumption of innocence.

Not just Hitler, but Stalin, Mao... pretty much every dictator under the sun has done this. That's why there's a special clause in the constitution to prevent the conviction of actions committed in the past that were not illegal. This type of behavior goes all the way back to Rome and Greece.

[Bacchus]

Gay man asks old hag a common-sense question.

Predictably, he's apologized:

[Dusty]

^^^^

I saw the first interview with her. She wasn't believable. First, why not just clamp you mouth shut and don't blow Cosby. Of course, she could say Cosby would have physically made her do it, but she never mentioned Cosby physically assaulting her.

Also, she said she was raped on two separate occasions. Why would she meet up with Cosby again after being raped? Her answer was Cosby was a star and called her house and her parents were excited and she didn't want to say anything. Then she ends up alone with Cosby and she alleges he raped her again. Hhmm, why not just ask your parents to accompany you then you wouldn't be alone with Cosby.

hhmm. something is fishy in Denmark.

She also seems to have very exact memories of the minutia of meeting Cosby in 1969. She calls him "Mr. Jello" a couple of times. He said Cosby used to call her "midget" because she's short.

I think this is a woman who stills has a crush.

One of her motivations could be being noticed by Cosby. He probably hasn't thought about her since he spit his load in 1969, but she thinks about him every day. Here's her chance to be on CNN knowing that he will watch, or at least he will know she exists again because he heard she is making news about him. She also gets to relive those glorious events in 1969 with people who want to hear her story (so what if she has to fib to get on TV - if she told the truth she'd be alone with her cats and they heard the story too many times).

[monster]

(11-19-2014 07:00 PM)Badamson Wrote:  

I'll just leave you with this: Bill Cosby's spirited alpha defense

vs. Woody Allen's defense:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinio...s-out.html

One of these men I can support. The other, I can't even.

I think Woody Allen's defense is infinitely more powerful and believable than Cosby's. Allen addresses the accusations head on and provides evidence that Mia Farrow implanted lots of Allen-hating ideas in their kids heads.

Cosby sticks to the freeze-out (not even actually speaking), which we saw with the RSD Julien-Gate is pretty much acknowledging defeat and acquiescing when such serious accusations are made against you.

[Dusty]

(11-20-2014 12:01 AM)monster Wrote:  

I think Woody Allen's defense is infinitely more powerful and believable than Cosby's. Allen addresses the accusations head on and provides evidence that Mia Farrow implanted lots of Allen-hating ideas in their kids heads.

Cosby sticks to the freeze-out (not even actually speaking), which we saw with the RSD Julien-Gate is pretty much acknowledging defeat and acquiescing when such serious accusations are made against you.

Cosby was also standing next to his wife when he got those questions.

He probably had consensual sex with these women. Getting a lot of strange in his younger days. If he opens the door and starts talking about what happened, he's got to discuss some pretty embarrassing things in front of his wife.

[Vronsky]

There are not a lot of celebrities I respect but I really respect Bill Cosby, his accomplishments and achievements. He's a major black celebrity who has actually focused his efforts on building a legacy through his diversified business ventures, scholarships and a ground-breaking long running show that modelled a functional and stable black family and that showcased the best of black culture to the rest of the US and the world. He was married to the same woman for a long time and he modelled a functional family lifestyle, at least before his son got murdered which I think is when he started to unravel. He's a shrewd man who came up through some hard times and forged a highly respected reputation for himself. I heard that he was not liked but he was definitely respected.

Having said all that, I tend towards believing the allegations as I normally tend to believe most allegations of sexual abuse and pedophelia emanating from Hollywood. Powerful people who have money, fame and power, or the people who are in a position to grant anyone of these things, are protected and get away with a lot of shit.
It's a pity when person who so many people admire is shown to have feet of clay. I don't care about allegations of infidelity or weird sexual practices but actual assault or other nefarious deeds goes beyond the line. And in this case, there is just too much smoke for there not to be a fire.
Janice Dickinson of all people actually talked about him being a predator way before this happened, in 2002.
As I said, I really like and respect the man. To me he is a man who emanates lots of dignity and gravitas (and I don't mean the exaggerated braggadocio and posturing of modern day hip hop stars), attributes sorely lacking our generation. It was painful to hear about this and in the larger scheme of things I don't think it will overshadow his legacy but it will be part of it.

[Orion]

Media vultures have already descended upon him. I believe dude is ruined.

[Paracelsus]

He's got 35 standup routines booked across the US across 2015. Guy is not ruined yet. All he has to do is wait out the storm. Enduring a swarm of hysterical SJW hornets is rough, but the media has all the attention span of a hummingbird. If he's still got substantial cash in bank, then all he has to do is sit back and wait for it all to die down. Criminal charges are unlikely to be laid (pardon the expression) and none of the women are likely to sue him, so there isn't any continuing story for the media to feed off - apart from maybe a followup when he starts his tour next year, there's no continuing story to run with.

Which shouldn't be interpreted as me commenting on the veracity of the stories, that's just an observation on how the filth we call the modern media work. On one hand strikingly similar stories can be compelling evidence of a pattern of behaviour; on the other, much depends on exactly when the stories first came up and whether indeed the complainants had an opportunity to tailor their accounts based on what the others complainants were saying. This indeed would be a potent area for cross-examination if it ever went to a trial: the fact the media, being the usual clowns they are, have sprayed close detail of the complaints across the world means there will forever be the suggestion -- true or untrue -- that the complainants doctored their stories to match one another. Indeed one of them was silly enough to say "I didn't want to say anything about it until I heard about the other complaints."

[germanico]

(11-14-2014 11:41 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

But anyway, ultra famous people like Cosby or Polanski, in positions of huge media power, they are surrounded by so much beauty and "temptation", and everything is so easy for them, so... I would be surprised if they never ever pushed their advantage a little bit... I mean, if they never ever gave wine to a stunning would-be actress or debutante, and then tried to kiss her or some, then they are saints, props to them... Let's be honest here, media people aren't saints...

Now, are these men often victims of entrapment, and are they obvious targets for scammers, the answer is yes, of course. Lots of women will try to scam them, sure! But, for some reason (I hope it's not jealousy ) I don't pity them, and actually, I am a little suspicious of them. Media people are totally selfish and vainglorious people, I can't trust them.

Imagine the situation. Here you have a man of power that is accustomed to having it so easy. Women are crawling up his bed day and night, throwing themselves at him. There are but a few men in the world in a position where the only thing they have to do to get sex is to whip their cocks out.

And there it comes a woman so infatuated with this power figure she hasnt still considered the sexual part of the interaction. She just wants to live the fantasy, to believe she is a special snowflake, that this powerful man loves her, that she is that special.

So the guy get annoyed when she is not putting out right away. So he pushes a bit further.

And of course, she regrets putting out the minute after its done. And morning after regret equals what?

[Gnu]

I've little doubt all these women fucked him, since that is what they are claiming they did. Only, I doubt they fucked him against their will, which they likely claimed after the fact.

[Enigma]

One of the "rape victims" came forward with her story yesterday. Get a load of this one.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/20...88270.html

Quote:

During a chance encounter at the Hilton gift shop, where Serignese says she was looking at jewelry with her sister, she says that Cosby invited her to see his show. "Somebody came up to me and put their arm around my neck from the back and said: 'Will you marry me?'" Serignese told HuffPost over the phone. "And I turned around to see who it was, and it was Bill Cosby."

After the show she claims she was escorted back to the green room by one of Cosby's people, where she waited around until everyone else had left. Once they were alone together, she says that Cosby held out two white pills and a glass of water, saying, "Here, take these." She did.

"The next memory I have was I was in a bathroom and I was kind of bending forward and he was behind me having sex with me," she said. "I was just there, thinking 'I'm on drugs, I'm drugged.' I felt drugged and I was being raped and it was kind of surreal. My frame of mind was that it would be over soon and I could just get out of there."

Serignese says that her mother encouraged her to call Cosby after she confided in her about the assault, saying, "Well, maybe he'll take care of you." She claims that she did call him, and that Cosby put her up in her own room in the penthouse of the Hilton for about three weeks, until he kicked her out after she had a pregnancy scare. She claims that she continued to have intermittent contact with Cosby over the next 20 years, including at least one subsequent sexual encounter around 1985. She also accepted two payments from him in 1996 after she sustained serious injuries in a car accident, including a $5,000 check from his agent, but she never came forward publicly about the assault for fear that no one would believe her.

Is "raped", dates him for a few weeks, then continues to talk to him for more than two decades after he dumps her.

What kind of "rape victim" has sex with their attacker 10 years later?

What kind of "rapist" pays for their victim's medical bills for an unrelated accident 20 years later?

[YossariansRight]

Has Bill Cosby really been running around, unchecked, raping women for ~50 years? I highly doubt it.

After all, it’s not like he’s a Kennedy.

[Princeton]

Quote:

"He took his hands and put them on the back of my head and forced his penis in my mouth, saying, ‘have a taste of this. It will do you good in so many ways.’”

I do believe the evidence points to him being a scumbag -- but I'm stealing that line.

http://hollywoodlife.com/2014/11/20/bill...sa-moritz/

[Enigma]

If you need further proof that journalistic integrity is completely dead, the Associated Press agreed not to ask Cosby about the rape allegations, asked him anyway, then release the footage of him requesting the segment be edited out.

It's crazy because celebrities and public figures refuse to ask certain questions all the time, yet this is now being twisted into evidence that Cosby has been strong arming the media all these years.

[TheSlayer]

Cosby is pretty much done in today's SJW environment. With the Cosby controversy and Jian Gomeshi (the radio host who was actually beating up women) mainstream media in Canada has been putting on a full court press talking about rape, how victims are silenced, and *how campuses are failing young women*. Just in the past week I have seen at least a dozen articles in some of the biggest newspapers here talking about rape and one of the more leftist ones is going on and on about what a big problem campus rape is. With the way things are I will not be surprised if the Ontarian government adopts California's "Yes means Yes" law. We are definitely headed that way here.