Bill Cosby in the spotlight looking good!

[CZroe]

Can you point to a single other instance in the history of human civilization where four dozen people from a wide variety of locations have independently accused a celebrity of heinous acts without any prior communication between each other and said accusations were proven to be 100% false? Thousands of years humans have been falsely accusing each other of all manner of things, many trying to look for a quick payday; never once have such accusations been on such a grand scale with dozens of accusers who never agreed to corroborate each other's tales, and didn't even know each other prior to the accusations becoming public. Why didn't we see dozens of accusations crop up against Mike Tyson or Kobe Bryant or Marv Albert or R. Kelly or Dave Letterman or Roman Polanski or Woody Allen or Ben Roethlisberger? It's such an utterly absurd conspiracy theory that it beggars belief.



Now celebrities using their positions of power to commit heinous acts over several decades and using their influence to cover it up? That's happened. Look at Jimmy Savile or Jerry Sandusky or Rolf Harris, people who got away with decades of child molestation because they were shielded by power. Look at all the accusations of molestation within the Catholic Church that were covered up for decades. It's not hard to find examples of celebrities or rich people or people in positions of power using their position to do horrifying things to a wide variety of victims; we have examples of that dating back to antiquity. But it's easier to believe that Bill Cosby is the first person in human history to inspire dozens of false rape accusations by random golddiggers who don't even know each other than to add him to the list of thousands who have abused positions of authority to victimize people below them? Come on now. That's intellectually lazy and morally reprehensible.

Salem Witch Trials. Michael Jackson. Various heads of state.

Edit: also, Dave Letterman went public because another accuser was blackmailing him.

Also, I'm not saying that this is what happened and that he's not a rapist. I'm saying that this is why even he deserves the presumption of innocence.

 

[Blackjack200]

I didn't say they were lying. I said that they have no proof they were raped.

Fucking sluts.

 

[Blackjack200]

Salem Witch Trials. Michael Jackson. Various heads of state.

Edit: also, Dave Letterman went public because another accuser was blackmailing him.

Jackson and Letterman had 4 dozen accusers?

 

[xBiffx]

Fucking sluts.

Whatever you say.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Salem Witch Trials. Michael Jackson. Various heads of state.

The Salem witch trials had the accusers collaborating beforehand; it was a conspiracy planned in advance, not something that developed on the fly with a bunch of "me-too!" accusers looking for a payday. Michael Jackson was not accused by dozens of people; if I recall correctly, it was just two accusers. You'd have to be more specific as to which heads of state, but again, those are virtually all planned out by the accusers in advance, something which no one is debating did not occur in Cosby's case.

Again, 48 accusers who did not know each other, who had no communication prior to the accusations, all leaping on the accusation bandwagon? It's never happened before.

 

[CZroe]

Jackson and Letterman had 4 dozen accusers?

Why do the amounts have to match? Jackson had many. The point is that the amount doesn't revoke the presumption of innocence. Almost the entirety of Salem would execute mob justice on presumed "witches" against people who were accused by others who often had ulterior motives. I'm pretty sure that's more than 50.

He may be a rapist, but the point stands.

 

[lotus503]

Salem Witch Trials. Michael Jackson. Various heads of state.

Edit: also, Dave Letterman went public because another accuser was blackmailing him.

Also, I'm not saying that this is what happened and that he's not a rapist. I'm saying that this is why even he deserves the presumption of innocence.

he deserves the presumption of innocence with regards to the law.

for the rest of us his own words and those of the 40+ accusers are enough to make some value judgements.

 

[jackstar7]

What's weird is that the people taking the opposing view are just criticizing how folks on the internet make character judgments.

Why would someone give a shit about that?

 

[CZroe]

Again, 48 accusers who did not know each other, who had no communication prior to the accusations, all leaping on the accusation bandwagon? It's never happened before.

Of course it has, and it's stupid to assume that there is no communication. Even if there is communication, it doesn't have to be between all. Often times they are targeted as a direct result of a prior accusation because it makes it more believable, just like Jackson's accusers who deliberately maneuvered themselves and their son into Jackson's life to take advantage of the prior accusation.

There were a ton of witnesses in the Michael Brown trial and some were proven not to have been there while others never personally communicated and lied about what they saw.

Salem wasn't an isolated incident.

 

[smackababy]

Salem Witch Trials. Michael Jackson. Various heads of state.

Edit: also, Dave Letterman went public because another accuser was blackmailing him.

Also, I'm not saying that this is what happened and that he's not a rapist. I'm saying that this is why even he deserves the presumption of innocence.

Salem Witch Trials resulted in 20 people being executed, and different conspirers accusing for different reason. Not a single person being accused by a vast number of people.

Michael Jackson also had 2 separate accusers. If 45 other kids came forward and said he molested them, I'd reason he was a pretty bad pedophile.

 

[Blackjack200]

he deserves the presumption of innocence with regards to the law.
for the rest of us his own words and those of the 40+ accusers are enough to make some value judgements.

Yeah, like, you guys understand that these are criminal justice system principals to protect the public from overzealous policing and prosecution, right?

If the police bust into someone's house without a warrent and find a meth lab, they may not be able to prosecute because they failed to follow proper procedure. But that doesn't mean that a person can't look at the facts and decide that they are satisfied that a person was cooking meth in that place.

 

[CZroe]

he deserves the presumption of innocence with regards to the law.



for the rest of us his own words and those of the 40+ accusers are enough to make some value judgements.

When someone misrepresents what he says as "proof" and we call them out on that, we aren't criticizing their value judgement. We are criticizing their ability to think critically and pointing out how easily manipulated they are to believe it says something it did not. If they said "I think that he is a rapist," I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not what they said. They screamed that it was "proof" and that he "admitted drugging women" specifically to "rape" them. Don't defend that idiocy.

 

[xBiffx]

When someone misrepresents what he says as "proof" and we call them out on that, we aren't criticizing their value judgement. We are criticizing their ability to think critically and pointing out how easily manipulated they are to believe it says something it did not. If they said "I think that he is a rapist," I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not what they said. They screamed that it was "proof" and that he "admitted drugging women" specifically to "rape" them. Don't defend that idiocy.

Pretty much this. No one is questioning values here at all. I've heard enough not to want associate with him, especially in private (not that either were ever a possibility anyways) but that doesn't mean that he is guilty of rape.

 

[CZroe]

The Salem witch trials had the accusers collaborating beforehand; it was a conspiracy planned in advance, not something that developed on the fly with a bunch of "me-too!" accusers looking for a payday. Michael Jackson was not accused by dozens of people; if I recall correctly, it was just two accusers. You'd have to be more specific as to which heads of state, but again, those are virtually all planned out by the accusers in advance, something which no one is debating did not occur in Cosby's case.



Again, 48 accusers who did not know each other, who had no communication prior to the accusations, all leaping on the accusation bandwagon? It's never happened before.

Prove that none of Cosby's accusers collaborated. It doesn't have to be all. Also, you are wrong about Salem. Almost the entire town was caught up in the witch hunts. Pitchforks and torches and mobs. Sounds familiar. You know what? There were a lot of lynch mobs in more modern times where people spontaneously joined in accusations that were not true or not punishable by death. Emmett Till?

 

[jackstar7]

Logic Protection Warriors.

The Internet's only salvation.

 

[xBiffx]

Logic Protection Warriors.

The Internet's only salvation.

There is no saving the internet.

 

[Blackjack200]

When someone misrepresents what he says as "proof" and we call them out on that, we aren't criticizing their value judgement. We are criticizing their ability to think critically and pointing out how easily manipulated they are to believe it says something it did not. If they said "I think that he is a rapist," I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not what they said. They screamed that it was "proof" and that he "admitted drugging women" specifically to "rape" them. Don't defend that idiocy.

Pretty much this. No one is questioning values here at all. I've heard enough not to want associate with him, especially in private but that doesn't mean that he is guilty of rape.

He admitted to giving women qualuudes for sex, then refused to answer the question of whether they knew about it. What possible reason could he have for refusing to answer that question other than not wanting to implicate himself?

That is quite reasonably being taken as a tacit admission of guilt, i.e. proof, even if it doesn't meet a legal standard.

 

[lotus503]

When someone misrepresents what he says as "proof" and we call them out on that, we aren't criticizing their value judgement. We are criticizing their ability to think critically and pointing out how easily manipulated they are to believe it says something it did not. If they said "I think that he is a rapist," I wouldn't have a problem, but that's not what they said. They screamed that it was "proof" and that he "admitted drugging women" specifically to "rape" them. Don't defend that idiocy.

That's not what i'm saying. what i'm saying is the accusations of over 40 women along with his self admission of giving a woman drugs is enough for me to think he is a serial rapist.

I don't hold my thoughts and opinions to judicial standard.

What I find odd is the very same folks that decry nothing that has come out is evidence of anything, will point to that fact some of the accusations didn't surface until years later as evidence they are lying.

if it walks like a duck, if it quacks like it a duck, its probably a rapy duck.

 

[xBiffx]

He admitted to giving women qualuudes for sex, then refused to answer the question of whether they knew about it. What possible reason could he have for refusing to answer that question other than not wanting to implicate himself?

That would be speculation on his part given his prior statements.

He already said he believed the encounters were consensual. How does one answer a question about what someone else knows? I mean, if he hid everything from them then any reasonable person would say that they don't know. But his version of things is that the women knew about the drugs. So how can you answer that question? His attorney probably coached him not to answer speculative questions like that.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yeah, I've given things to people in the past (not for sex) and can tell you under oath, with zero speculation, that they knew.

 

[xBiffx]

Yeah, I've given things to people in the past (not for sex) and can tell you under oath, with zero speculation, that they knew.

That's not the whole question. The question is also do you know if they know why you gave those things to them.

He admitted to giving women qualuudes for sex, then refused to answer the question of whether they knew about it.

 

[CZroe]

The Salem witch trials had the accusers collaborating beforehand; it was a conspiracy planned in advance, not something that developed on the fly with a bunch of "me-too!" accusers looking for a payday. Michael Jackson was not accused by dozens of people; if I recall correctly, it was just two accusers. You'd have to be more specific as to which heads of state, but again, those are virtually all planned out by the accusers in advance, something which no one is debating did not occur in Cosby's case.



Again, 48 accusers who did not know each other, who had no communication prior to the accusations, all leaping on the accusation bandwagon? It's never happened before.

Jackson had two trials, more accusers. Salem certainly was "on the fly." If people didn't like someone they would pile on the made-up accusations. More and more people would pile on. False accusers conspired with the media against George Bush. John Kerry had the whole swift boats thing. I could go on.

 

[CZroe]

Yeah, I've given things to people in the past (not for sex) and can tell you under oath, with zero speculation, that they knew.

Which is exactly what he did and what everyone is twisting out of context and adding additional meaning to.

 

[Blackjack200]

That's not the whole question. The question is also do you know if they know why you gave those things to them.

WhatisthisIdon'teven

"When you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?" Troiani asked.

"Yes," Cosby replied.

"Did you ever give any of those young women the Quaaludes without their knowledge?" Troiani asked.

Cosby's attorney objected and told him not to answer the question.

Which is exactly what he did and what everyone is twisting out of context and adding additional meaning to.

What? No. Not at all. Cosby refused to answer the question of whether the women knew. I'm saying that I've given people things and can comfortably say they knew about it.

 

[lotus503]

Which is exactly what he did and what everyone is twisting out of context and adding additional meaning to.

Exactly what he said he did, and then refused to answer related questions.