Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Over the past week or so, the media has been storming about multiple forthcoming allegations of rape against legendary comedian and actor Bill Cosby. Do you think Cosby is guilty and his facade of innocence is finally being exposed, or do you think he is being unjustly slandered for publicity? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/business/media/bill-cosby-fallout-rape-accusations.html?_r=0

Apparently, Bill Cosby is a legendary douche to people. I didn't know this until a similar thread to this one was created on reddit and people were talking about their experiences with meeting him.

Could you PM me the link to that thread?

Wouldn't be surprised if some or all of the allegations are true. Young women are dumb and men with money are pigs.

But no charges pressed means this shouldn't even qualify as news. No trial means no burden to provide proof. No proof provided means the allegations are as good as attention-whoring.

What I don't understand is why immensely famous people have to resort to rape. I imagine that in the 80's when Cosby was at the zenith of his fame/fortune, he'd have no shortage of women throwing themselves at him.

I dont understand why any people commit rape.

Power, and control, you noticed all his victims are white (I think)
I saw some black female celebrities say they were alone with Cosby with no problems. This shows he has preference

It shows he's not a fool.

Black women look for excuses to beat a man to death.

Originally posted by Quincy
I dont understand why any people commit rape.

/edgy

But yeah, reading back, should have worded that better

Originally posted by EvilTyrant
Power, and control, you noticed all his victims are white (I think)
I saw some black female celebrities say they were alone with Cosby with no problems. This shows he has preference

He's a racist

Originally posted by Robtard
/edgy

But yeah, reading back, should have worded that better

awefonzt

The whole thing is awful. People are really not good.

Meow.

Puddin' pops.

Ignore this message.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ignore this message.

First rule of dadudemon's posts

OOOOOoooooOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOOHHHHHHhhhhhhHHHH!!!!

I dont know it was a simple shot and I took it it was unwarranted I'm sorry you're not half bad.

Guilty

Until proven innocent?

Originally posted by juggerman
Until proven innocent?


Yes OJ was innocent too remember. There has been rumors of this for years. Its now making headline news..I wonder why..Does the media find ways to get people to focus on non issues instead of the real issues.

Who gives a ****, really. People should be concerned about the country not what some old fck did.

I don't know dude, if Cosby is/was really a serial rapist, imo, he should be exposed and face charges. The fact that he was sold as the ideal "family man" just adds further insult to injury. Even if he is too old and decrepit now to rape anyone else, at least some of his victims might be able to find closure.

Besides, it's not like people can't digest a story about Cosby drugging/raping and say the economy at the same time.

Those girls a$$ shake like j-e-l-l-o

Originally posted by Raisen
Those girls a$$ shake like j-e-l-l-o

Still waiting for the Cosby pic with "Where da white women at!?" line attached, figured it have popped up by now. Internet, you've let me down again.

Yeah probably the rape victims give a ****

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't know dude, if Cosby is/was really a serial rapist, imo, he should be exposed and face charges. The fact that he was sold as the ideal "family man" just adds further insult to injury. Even if he is too old and decrepit now to rape anyone else, at least some of his victims might be able to find closure.

Besides, it's not like people can't digest a story about Cosby drugging/raping and say the economy at the same time. Yeah, if he is guilty then he should be held responsible.

I mean sure, his alleged actions alone have not affected all that many people, relatively speaking, but by not giving a shit and condoning that behavior it will just keep happening in the future. It's a perpetuation of the idea that the rich and famous can get away with whatever silly things they want (like Roman Polanski) and, as Bardock will no doubt tell us soon, the rape culture.

I feel like all of my childhood idols are slowly being destroyed. First Tiger, then Lance, now even Cosby. I would say my childhood is being raped, but IDK if that would be appropriate

I have to admit though, I can't help but sort of turn my head and laugh when I try to imagine Cosby raping a woman.

I hope his wife has said to him, this is what people will remember, Bill, for all the good you've done. This is what people will remember, how they will see you for years to come and for years after you die.

If Mr. Cosby did this, he needs to speak. He needs to man up or set the record straight. This in itself would cap his legacy in a manner befitting the high regard America has held for him.

I'm wondering, if somewhere in his psyche, he feels the loss of his son was payment enough for what he may've done.

If he did it, why are they talking about it now? This is something that was said to have allegedly happened over 10 yrs ago. If it goes to trial, these women should be laughed out of court, or sentenced for slander.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I have to admit though, I can't help but sort of turn my head and laugh when I try to imagine Cosby raping a woman.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-WdWfsSz5pgg/T5OCuDGdEAI/AAAAAAAACQI/7DKu2EeD9OE/s1600/cosby.gif

Originally posted by Stoic
If he did it, why are they talking about it now? This is something that was said to have allegedly happened over 10 yrs ago. If it goes to trial, these women should be laughed out of court, or sentenced for slander.

Rape victims keeping quiet for a length of time isn't some new thing, especially if they were raped by an affluent person who happens to be loved by millions. The fear of being blamed for the crime and/or ridiculed is real, just as you've demonstrated.

Originally posted by Robtard
Rape victims keeping quiet for a length of time isn't some new thing, especially if they were raped by an affluent person who happens to be loved by millions. The fear of being blamed for the crime and/or ridiculed is real, just as you've demonstrated.

Well even if he did do it, how in the world would they prove that he did? This is what I mean. I understand the claim, and the effects on those claiming it, but without any physical proof, he easily walks away with a "I didn't do it".

Originally posted by Stoic
Well even if he did do it, how in the world would they prove that he did? This is what I mean. I understand the claim, and the effects on those claiming it, but without any physical proof, he easily walks away with a "I didn't do it".

This is true, with the time that has passed I can't imagine there would be any evidence and it is a "he said, they said" scenario.

But who knows, he might have a conscious now and confess if he has to face the faces/voices of enough of his victims who are now no longer quiet, if he is in fact a serial rapist.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is true, with the time that has passed I can't imagine there would be any evidence and it is a "he said, they said" scenario.

But who knows, he might have a conscious now and confess if he has to face the faces/voices of enough of his victims who are now no longer quiet, if he is in fact a serial rapist.

Not just that, but the statute of limitations ran out of these girls. There's nothing that they can do besides hope that he comes forth and tells the world if he did it or didn't do it. This is why most Judges would laugh these women out of court, or slap them with a fine for slander, or outright throw them in jail. If you are raped, speak up, or no one knows. Like who the hell cares if the ones that were raped apparently didn't care enough to nab the guy who forced himself onto them? If I was the Judge, and this case came to me, the first thing that I would think was that these women want a pay out.

Have you looked at Bill Cosby's face recently? The guy looks like he's about to have a stroke. I'm being serious here. Half of his face has that lazy look that stroke victims get just before, or yrs after they stroke out. The guy really doesn't look like he has much longer to live. I'd toss their silly asses out of the court, and tell them that they got off with a warning.

Originally posted by Lestov16
I feel like all of my childhood idols are slowly being destroyed. First Tiger, then Lance, now even Cosby. I would say my childhood is being raped, but IDK if that would be appropriate

Thats because everything you know was a lie. Nothing is what it seems, this is the world we live in.

Is there a statute of limitations for rape? I know there isn't for murder and some other crimes.

I'm unaware of this "most Judges would laugh these women out of court..." as being a common thing in rape cases that weren't reported the day of.

Eddie Murphy needs to call his ass up and put him to task. Probably need to be familiar with Murphy's "Raw" to understand.

m0aKNwsrtXw

Depends on the state that you live in, but that's pretty recent. I believe that there was a time limit of 10 yrs. I can understand a child being afraid or confused about blowing the whistle, but these are grown women.

Originally posted by Stoic
Like who the hell cares if the ones that were raped apparently didn't care enough to nab the guy who forced himself onto them? If I was the Judge, and this case came to me, the first thing that I would think was that these women want a pay out.



Fear, the very real situation that some one more powerful then you both in influence and in money could make your life hell and people who don't want someone they like in jail harassing you and blaming you for it.

And really, saying who cares just because it wasn't reported right away is a really shitty thing to say. I doubt you'd feel that way if someone you love told you they were raped. The fact that it was in the past doesn't change that something terrible happened.

Who ITT thinks the allegations are true?

gut instinct speaking... i could see bill cosby date raping some bitches.

Originally posted by Stoic
This is why most Judges would laugh these women out of court, or slap them with a fine for slander, or outright throw them in jail. If you are raped, speak up, or no one knows. Like who the hell cares if the ones that were raped apparently didn't care enough to nab the guy who forced himself onto them? If I was the Judge, and this case came to me, the first thing that I would think was that these women want a pay out.

Have you looked at Bill Cosby's face recently? The guy looks like he's about to have a stroke. I'm being serious here. Half of his face has that lazy look that stroke victims get just before, or yrs after they stroke out. The guy really doesn't look like he has much longer to live. I'd toss their silly asses out of the court, and tell them that they got off with a warning.

Originally posted by Robtard
This is true, with the time that has passed I can't imagine there would be any evidence and it is a "he said, they said" scenario.



Either way his reputation is tarnished. That lingering doubt will now forever hang over his head when it comes to dealing with his family, friends & associates.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
Who ITT thinks the allegations are true?

If I'm being honest, I would say that it seems off/false. I've been close enough to even just a local celebrity to know that even a bit of fame as a performer can open almost any sexual door.

Why would an A-List celebrity need to drug anyone?

^but they get caught doing shit like that sometimes. you have to keep in mind the lifestyle of excess these people can sometimes lead. it's not just about wanting sex. it's about wanting anything and anyone you set your eyes on.

Originally posted by red g jacks
^but they get caught doing shit like that sometimes. you have to keep in mind the lifestyle of excess these people can sometimes lead. it's not just about wanting sex. it's about wanting anything and anyone you set your eyes on.

This is not about an arbitrary strawman that many people have invented. This is about Bill Cosby. The burden is on people who think he is guilty to prove his guilt. They must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bill Cosby fits the profile of a sexual predator who has serialized his behavior. They must bring forth some evidence. The accusations are of a serial rapist category.

I have my doubts. It doesn't really fit. But I'm not on a jury. He may be a dick but there's nothing solid out there, besides accusations, that he is a rapist. If accusations is all we needed in contemporary courts, then I could accuse anyone of raping me and get them thrown in jail. Oh, wait, that's exactly how the system works, currently. Stupid system.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I'm being honest, I would say that it seems off/false. I've been close enough to even just a local celebrity to know that even a bit of fame as a performer can open almost any sexual door.

Why would an A-List celebrity need to drug anyone? Because some people derive more satisfaction from it than banging groupies.

I don't know if the allegations are true, and if they are then he should face justice, but I personally don't really care.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is not about an arbitrary strawman that many people have invented. This is about Bill Cosby. The burden is on people who think he is guilty to prove his guilt. They must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Bill Cosby fits the profile of a sexual predator who has serialized his behavior. They must bring forth some evidence. The accusations are of a serial rapist category.

I have my doubts. It doesn't really fit. But I'm not on a jury. He may be a dick but there's nothing solid out there, besides accusations, that he is a rapist. If accusations is all we needed in contemporary courts, then I could accuse anyone of raping me and get them thrown in jail. Oh, wait, that's exactly how the system works, currently. Stupid system. i was responding to the "why would an a-list celebrity rape/drug somebody?" part. to me that's like saying nobody famous ever rapes anybody, which we all know isn't true. but as for bill cosby in particular i don't know the details cause i can't really follow petty tabloid type stories like these so just like nemebro i don't really care. but i wouldn't be that surprised if he did. there are some ****ed up rich and famous people out there.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i was responding to the "why would an a-list celebrity rape/drug somebody?" part.

You proposed a very improbable scenario as a justification for why he is guilty which just shifts even more burden on people like you to have to prove even more things to even further the conversation.

If your only interest was simply to play devil's advocate, we haven't gotten anywhere as you've only addressed an extremely rare type of person. We are still left with my question, "Why would an A-List celebrity need to drug anyone?" The answer is obvious: that type of person wouldn't. If you think he's into some serial rapist stuff, where's your proof? If you have none, what is the point of entertaining highly improbable scenarios except to wallow in celebrity smut talk?

Originally posted by red g jacks
to me that's like saying nobody famous ever rapes anybody, which we all know isn't true.

Nah. That's not really close to being useful, at all, in this discussion. Strawman arguments just plain suck. I recommend everyone avoid them. Be direct. State what you want to say and don't make your points with poorly formed strawman arguments.

You'd do better to just say, "You asked a rhetorical question and I understood the implications. I figured I'd put out there that there are highly improbable scenarios which do not agree with the rhetoric."

But that's too direct. That's too easy. But I wish more people would post like that. It would save time from this lame word games.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You proposed a very improbable scenario as a justification for why he is guilty which just shifts even more burden on people like you to have to prove even more things to even further the conversation.

If your only interest was simply to play devil's advocate, we haven't gotten anywhere as you've only addressed an extremely rare type of person. We are still left with my question, "Why would an A-List celebrity need to drug anyone?" The answer is obvious: that type of person wouldn't. If you think he's into some serial rapist stuff, where's your proof? If you have none, what is the point of entertaining highly improbable scenarios except to wallow in celebrity smut talk?



Nah. That's not really close to being useful, at all, in this discussion. Strawman arguments just plain suck. I recommend everyone avoid them. Be direct. State what you want to say and don't make your points with poorly formed strawman arguments.

You'd do better to just say, "You asked a rhetorical question and I understood the implications. I figured I'd put out there that there are highly improbable scenarios which do not agree with the rhetoric."

But that's too direct. That's too easy. But I wish more people would post like that. It would save time from this lame word games. i dunno where you get that it's highly improbable and all that but i thought it was all pretty straight forward. you asked why an a-lister would do such a thing, i gave you a possible scenario. now you're moving the goal posts and saying "how do you know that's the scenario?" simple. i don't. never said i did. but unless your point was that there aren't plausible reasons for why an a-lister would engage in such behavior thus implying that he's not guilty cause he's an a-lister and doesn't need to go to such lengths to get sex, i'm not sure what the point of your rhetorical question was. if that was your point then i don't see why posing a hypothetical reason is a 'straw man argument.'

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I'm being honest, I would say that it seems off/false. I've been close enough to even just a local celebrity to know that even a bit of fame as a performer can open almost any sexual door.

Why would an A-List celebrity need to drug anyone?

Because rape isn't a purely sexual crime. It's violent, and wrathful. Controlling someone against there will.

Being a celebrity has nothing to do with it

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dunno where you get that it's highly improbable

Criminology?

"Stranger Rapists", themselves, are the extremely uncommon among rapists. Serial rapists among A-list celebrities is also extremely rare (that much should be obvious due to them being extremely visible public figures).

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Behavioural_Characteristics_of_Rapists.pdf


Proposing a highly improbable scenario to a rhetorical question doesn't really get us anywhere. The burden of proof literally still exists for proving he was a serial rapist.

Originally posted by red g jacks
and all that but i thought it was all pretty straight forward. you asked why an a-lister would do such a thing, i gave you a possible scenario.

1. I'm positive I just explained to you it was a rhetorical question in my previous post.
2. I'm also pretty sure I explained to you that your answer is highly improbable unless you have evidence that we both know doesn't exist.

Originally posted by red g jacks
now you're moving the goal posts

This sentence here indicates you missed an extremely important and fundamental point in my last post. When someone tells you a question was rhetorical and you still explore an avenue that ignores the fact that it was rhetorical, you have destroyed any semblance of a reasonable conversation.

Check it out: you were not supposed to answer the rhetorical question. You definitely were not supposed to answer the rhetorical question with a highly improbable scenario that has no evidence to support it.

Again, let me make it clear that exploring highly improbable scenarios does nothing for this conversation. You can propose that, perhaps, Bill Cosby is actually the unfortunate "victim" of a person that closely resembled him: that's highly improbable, too. There are probably dozens of men running around out there that look like Bill Cosby.

Originally posted by Quincy
Because rape isn't a purely sexual crime. It's violent, and wrathful. Controlling someone against there will.

This is missed the point entirely. It is unnecessary to point out that rape isn't a purely sexual crime to a forum of adults who are almost all college educated.

You're also making the same mistake as Red: you're painting the picture of a very specific type of rapist without evidence. Do you wish to paint Bill Cosby as "Violent, Wrathful, and Controlling?"

You should know that there are multiple kinds of serial rapists: not just the violent, wrathful, controlling kind.


Here's the point you missed: Bill Cosby is accused of getting sexual gratification from people by drugging them. This does not fit the profile of a celebrity that has access to pretty much anyone. Violent type that you described? Yeah, I could see that from a celebrity. A date rape drug back in the early 80s? I dunno...maybe...but it seems stupid to use a drug to have sex with a woman that came back to your cabin.

"Because! Because! He's a rapist that wants the thrill and control!"

Oookay....that's not going to fly. This is an A-List celebrity. This is not some random dude. Even in 1982, Bill Cosby was famous. He could easily pay for this from a very expensive prostitution service. If you want this conversation to be about Bill Cosby living out power play fantasies with date rape drugs, you'll need to do more than use arguments that appeal to an irrelevant rapist profile.

Originally posted by Quincy
Being a celebrity has nothing to do with it

Actually, it does. These allegations state he is drugging them and either molesting them or having sex with them. Basically, the accusation is he's drugging them and then getting sexual gratification. See above why it makes no sense to dismiss his A-List celebrity card.

If on a jury, based on what you know, right now, would you be able to deliver a "guilty" verdict to the judge?

Anyone saying he is guilty is an idiot. If you don't know, you don't know.

/$

Originally posted by dadudemon

Why would an A-List celebrity need to drug anyone?


Seriously, we're talking Bill Cosby here.
Not Clooney or Pitt for that matter...

I can't imagine women throwing themselves at Cosby, simply becos he's considered an A-Lister.
He's fame is based on a clean cut, family values image not exactly a playboy party animal.

The drugging is part of the fantasy of total control & submissiveness, not so much as the necessity for sex to hapen.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Seriously, we're talking Bill Cosby here.
Not Clooney or Pitt for that matter...

I can't imagine women throwing themselves at Cosby, simply becos he's considered an A-Lister.
He's fame is based on a clean cut, family values image not exactly a playboy party animal.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I've been close enough to even just a local celebrity to know that even a bit of fame as a performer can open almost any sexual door.






Originally posted by Esau Cairn
The drugging is part of the fantasy of total control & submissiveness, not so much as the necessity for sex to hapen.

Originally posted by dadudemon
He could easily pay for this from a very expensive prostitution service.

Oh c'mon you're personally vouching Cosby's innocence because you've been close to a local celebrity???

And it's different to pay a prostitute for the same thing.
It's a consensual proposition...there's no thrill of the hunt, thrill of the opportunity. There's no feeling of dominance when you're paying someone to act the submissive role.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Oh c'mon you're personally vouching Cosby's innocence because you've been close to a local celebrity???

Surely you don't think my anecdote has anything at all to do with you having a very high burden of proof, does it?


Let's not shift the focus here on me knowing, as fact, that landing poo-nanner is quite easy with just a bit of fame. Let's make sure we focus on those that wish to accuse Bill Cosby of being a serial rapist.


And it's different to pay a prostitute for the same thing.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
It's a consensual proposition...there's no thrill of the hunt, thrill of the opportunity. There's no feeling of dominance when you're paying someone to act the submissive role.

And yet, ridiculous amounts of people disagree with you who pay for these prostitution services. What you want to do is similar to what Red did: paint BC as a very rare individual who fits an extraordinary definition of rapist.

Cool. Proof?


Until then, let's stick to more probable discussions.


Let's go back to the stupid idea that Bill Cosby would rather rape someone with a date-rape drug than pay for a similar service with a prostitution service: you're forgetting he's a celebrity even as far back as the 60s. So, now, why would a smart man like Bill Cosby ruin his entire career by raping someone with drugs when something like that would get out quite quickly?


Think for a bit...let the obvious sink in. Explore the obvious. Until you have more evidence, don't entertain asinine improbable scenarios. Keep in mind, in the US, a person is supposedly innocent until proven guilty. Until then, these are just baseless and factless accusations.


Let's go here: "Did Bill Cosby rape those women based on the evidence you have, now?" Since we have no evidence except accusations, we cannot conclude that he raped those women.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn


I can't imagine women throwing themselves at Cosby, simply becos he's considered an A-Lister.


Then you don't know women very well.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Oh c'mon you're personally vouching Cosby's innocence because you've been close to a local celebrity???

And it's different to pay a prostitute for the same thing.
It's a consensual proposition...there's no thrill of the hunt, thrill of the opportunity. There's no feeling of dominance when you're paying someone to act the submissive role. Why shouldn't we assume Cosby is innocent without proof of the contrary?

It's safer that way.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Criminology?

"Stranger Rapists", themselves, are the extremely uncommon among rapists. Serial rapists among A-list celebrities is also extremely rare (that much should be obvious due to them being extremely visible public figures).

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Behavioural_Characteristics_of_Rapists.pdf


Proposing a highly improbable scenario to a rhetorical question doesn't really get us anywhere. The burden of proof literally still exists for proving he was a serial rapist.i'm pretty sure being a rapist is probably not all that common in general. then again having a bunch of women accuse you of rape is probably not all that common in general. of course the burden of proof lies on the accusers. never once did i say "bill cosby is guilty because..."



i'm sure you keep saying it's a rhetorical question. that probably does mean a lot to you. rhetorical questions are usually stated to prove a point.



i'm not 'supposed' to do a lot of things yet i do them anyway. you don't like my objection? that's cool. yet i'm not the only person answering your rhetorical question so maybe it's not me being weird and it's actually that your rhetorical question wasn't such a great point.

Originally posted by dadudemon

You're absolutely right. I have no evidence whatsoever on whether he's guilty or innocent. I have exactly the same I information the media has given to you, me & every other poster who has commented on this thread.
Personally I couldn't care less about BC but I'm not the one who claimed knew better because they personally knew some other celebrity & based their judgement on that. You did.
Jimmy Sommervile got labelled as the worst child molester the UK has ever since. He got exposed 20-30 years after the crimes he committed. Same with Rolf Harris. Both worked in the entertainment industry as family friendly roles.
I'M NOT USING THESE 2 CELEBRITIES TO CAST JUDGEMENT ON COSBY, I'm simply pointing out that people can have dark sides to them & if they're a public figure then it's easier & probably inevitable that their pasts will catch up with them.
ONCE AGAIN I HAVE NO PROOF OF COSBY'S WRONG DOING NOR AM I USING HARRIS OR SOMMERVILE AS EXAMPLES OF HIS GUILT.
I'm simply pointing out that there is a facade to people, some who choose to be celebrities & not to necessarily believe the clean cut images they portray.

Rape is a dangerous fantasy to have. Role playing with your consensual partner or a paid prostitute doesn't give the same thrill as the real thing. After the session is over, everyone involved knows it's fake....why drug a hooker when they can pretend to be unconscious?

Originally posted by Placidity
Then you don't know women very well.

Unless you're the same age as Cosby, most women I know aren't into grandfather figures.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Why shouldn't we assume Cosby is innocent without proof of the contrary?

It's safer that way.

Once again my issue or opinion wasn't based on whether Cosby did or didn't do what he's alleged to have done.

I was personally criticising Dude's remark on his knowing a local celebrity & judging Cosby's innocence simply on that fact.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'm not 'supposed' to do a lot of things yet i do them anyway. you don't like my objection? that's cool. yet i'm not the only person answering your rhetorical question so maybe it's not me being weird and it's actually that your rhetorical question wasn't such a great point.

"Derp, I'm not the only one who believes x so it must be true!!!"

Argumentum ad populum


Check it out: male celebrities have tons and tons of sex. The idea that Bill Cosby would need to use a date rape drug to get laid is quite stupid.

"But! But!!! BUT!!! He could have been raping to do the fantasy control bla bla bla."

That's a shitty argument and it heavily relies on another logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Celebrities don't need date rape drugs to get laid. That's the rhetoric. You have nothing substantial to offer as a counter besides silly unlikely scenarios that you have no way of substantiating.


I'll put it more simply so you can understand: exploring extremely unlikely explanations is really stupid. I don't want to explore your stupid ideas as it adds nothing but stupidity to the topic.

"But! But! Rape fantasies, man! RAPE FANTASIES!" Okay. You've got me. Bill Cosby took his rape fantasies too far and risked his career over many decades raping the shit out of many women and only 4 are brave enough to come forward. Case close, guys, Red solved everything.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
You're absolutely right. I have no evidence whatsoever on whether he's guilty or innocent. I have exactly the same I information the media has given to you, me & every other poster who has commented on this thread.
Personally I couldn't care less about BC but I'm not the one who claimed knew better because they personally knew some other celebrity & based their judgement on that. You did.
Jimmy Sommervile got labelled as the worst child molester the UK has ever since. He got exposed 20-30 years after the crimes he committed. Same with Rolf Harris. Both worked in the entertainment industry as family friendly roles.
I'M NOT USING THESE 2 CELEBRITIES TO CAST JUDGEMENT ON COSBY, I'm simply pointing out that people can have dark sides to them & if they're a public figure then it's easier & probably inevitable that their pasts will catch up with them.
ONCE AGAIN I HAVE NO PROOF OF COSBY'S WRONG DOING NOR AM I USING HARRIS OR SOMMERVILE AS EXAMPLES OF HIS GUILT.
I'm simply pointing out that there is a facade to people, some who choose to be celebrities & not to necessarily believe the clean cut images they portray.



Cool.


Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Rape is a dangerous fantasy to have. Role playing with your consensual partner or a paid prostitute doesn't give the same thrill as the real thing.

But you're still committing the some fallacy as Red. You cannot pretend that this extremely unlikely scenario is entertain-able without evidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let's not shift the focus here on me knowing, as fact, that landing poo-nanner is quite easy with just a bit of fame.


Dude, what the hell are you trying to say here?

What's a "landing poo-nanner"?

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Derp, I'm not the only one who believes x so it must be true!!!"

Argumentum ad populum


Check it out: male celebrities have tons and tons of sex. The idea that Bill Cosby would need to use a date rape drug to get laid is quite stupid.

"But! But!!! BUT!!! He could have been raping to do the fantasy control bla bla bla."

That's a shitty argument and it heavily relies on another logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Celebrities don't need date rape drugs to get laid. That's the rhetoric. You have nothing substantial to offer as a counter besides silly unlikely scenarios that you have no way of substantiating.


I'll put it more simply so you can understand: exploring extremely unlikely explanations is really stupid. I don't want to explore your stupid ideas as it adds nothing but stupidity to the topic.

"But! But! Rape fantasies, man! RAPE FANTASIES!" Okay. You've got me. Bill Cosby took his rape fantasies too far and risked his career over many decades raping the shit out of many women and only 4 are brave enough to come forward. Case close, guys, Red solved everything.
the idea that bill cosby couldn't get laid without the date rape drug is stupid. the idea that bill cosby could've been a ****ed up person who raped people anyway is not that stupid, when there's a ton of people accusing him of rape. sure it could be character assassination and he could be innocent. or there could be something to it and he could be a rapist. you can keep pretending like its obvious he wouldn't do it cause "celebrities get mad pussy dog" but that's just as dumb as any of my made up bullshit at the end of day no matter how many latin slogans you pull out of your hat.

edit - i just noticed you said "and only 4 came forward." lol. oh well never mind then. only 4 women accused him of rape? i guess he's innocent then man you're right. you should probably be his lawyer bro.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Of course I have no evidence to what personally turns Cosby on sexually.
He's clean cut image on TV as a family man never touched or hinted on sexuality.

Hell, the notion that Bill Cosby actually had a penis never occurred to me before the allegations!

Did anyone ever look at Clinton & see a guy who got off with his cigar?

i assume by default that most politicians are secret perverts

And I assume by default that you have no sense of humour whatsoever.

i didn't get the cigar reference i guess

One of the things Monica Lewinski claimed Clinton did to her was to insert his cigar into her pussy & claim he was looking forward to smoking it later...

lol. that's why he's my favorite president since kennedy.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Unless you're the same age as Cosby, most women I know aren't into grandfather figures.

1. Keyword "most".

2. You may have a point if he was just a grandfather figure.

3. You don't know much about women. And I'm not even trying to insult you or insinuate anything. Most people don't.

Women can have many other reasons why they are "into" someone.



http://files.purpleclover.com/photos/2014/01/07/53-11573-65th-annual-primetime-emmy-awards-arrivals-1389053799.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01142/arts-graphics-2003_1142625a.jpg
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/image-library/partners/bang/square/500/s/sir-mick-jagger-and-lwren-scott-3670cb34bb34b0a2143942bc45ab.jpg
http://cdn3.gossipcenter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/story_header/photos/clintwife090413sp1.jpg
http://assets-s3.usmagazine.com/uploads/assets/photo_galleries/regular_galleries/2158-hugh-hefner-buys-5-million-mansion-for-wife-crystal-harris-pictures/photos/1368729319_hugh-hefner-crystal-harris-lg.jpg

I also find the women who claim men don't understand them are the same women who think men are simple & shallow, defined by their nether regions.

And it's funny that all your examples are of rich old men.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I also find the women who claim men don't understand them are the same women who think men are simple & shallow, defined by their nether regions.

And it's funny that all your examples are of rich old men.

Why is it funny?

I never said money was the only reason. But sure, Bill is worth $350-400 million.

Ok. I thought u were hinting at genuine love & respect that a woman may see in an older guy but basically you're just confirming the obvious...women want Sugar Daddies not romance.

Originally posted by dadudemon

Check it out: male celebrities have tons and tons of sex. The idea that Bill Cosby would need to use a date rape drug to get laid is quite stupid.


The underlying assumption here, that you don't outright state, is that women are completely interchangeable. The question is not "Does Bill Cosby need a date rape drug to have sex at all", it is "Does Bill Cosby need a date rape drug to have sex with this particularly woman".

God I hate to say this, but it's the truth.....there are a hell of a lot of false rape allegations that occur. I've read many studies in the different criminology courses that I took. There was a study of a particular city in Texas that alluded to half of the allegations being malicious and untrue.
Celebrities are particularly vulnerable due to the money factor, Kobe for example . I know somebody here will bash me for saying this but the rape card is real indeed.

Originally posted by dadudemon
"Derp, I'm not the only one who believes x so it must be true!!!"

Argumentum ad populum


Check it out: male celebrities have tons and tons of sex. The idea that Bill Cosby would need to use a date rape drug to get laid is quite stupid.

"But! But!!! BUT!!! He could have been raping to do the fantasy control bla bla bla."

That's a shitty argument and it heavily relies on another logical fallacy: argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Celebrities don't need date rape drugs to get laid. That's the rhetoric. You have nothing substantial to offer as a counter besides silly unlikely scenarios that you have no way of substantiating.


I'll put it more simply so you can understand: exploring extremely unlikely explanations is really stupid. I don't want to explore your stupid ideas as it adds nothing but stupidity to the topic.

"But! But! Rape fantasies, man! RAPE FANTASIES!" Okay. You've got me. Bill Cosby took his rape fantasies too far and risked his career over many decades raping the shit out of many women and only 4 are brave enough to come forward. Case close, guys, Red solved everything.


This made the same assumption and mistake I did earlier tha Quincy in a roundabout way pointed out. Rape isn't always just about sex, Cosby could just be a ****ing degenerate.

And as Bardock pointed out, Cosby's fame doesn't mean he gets to have sex with any woman he wants with ease, it's possible he used drugs/rape to get to the women who rejected his pudding pop.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The question is not "Does Bill Cosby need a date rape drug to have sex at all", it is "Does Bill Cosby need a date rape drug to have sex with this particularly woman".

That's not the question, either. The question is, "Why would an A-List celebrity need to use a date-rape drug to have sex with anyone?" And we can add, "And went uncaught for decades, while being an extremely visible public figure, and fits a serial rapist profile?"

Your question is easily answerable with his 1982 allegation when a woman went back to his cabin (I assume) and claims she was drugged and molested. That doesn't add up. Unless, of course, this famous model was a sheltered Mormon who doesn't know what happens when you go back to a man's place (Mormons like that exist: trust me).

Originally posted by red g jacks
the idea that bill cosby couldn't get laid without the date rape drug is stupid. the idea that bill cosby could've been a ****ed up person who raped people anyway is not that stupid, when there's a ton of people accusing him of rape. sure it could be character assassination and he could be innocent. or there could be something to it and he could be a rapist. you can keep pretending like its obvious he wouldn't do it cause "celebrities get mad pussy dog" but that's just as dumb as any of my made up bullshit at the end of day no matter how many latin slogans you pull out of your hat.

edit - i just noticed you said "and only 4 came forward." lol. oh well never mind then. only 4 women accused him of rape? i guess he's innocent then man you're right. you should probably be his lawyer bro.

Looks like you've already convicted him with 0 evidence and still ignored all the counter-arguments I made to everything you stated in this post of yours. It's idiocy like this that makes me think people like you should lose the right to vote.




Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Dude, what the hell are you trying to say here?

What's a "landing poo-nanner"?



Poo-nanner is a derogatory and sexist term for "vagina."

I like you.

Guys! Relax! It's settled! Because an A-List celebrity has multiple sexual assault allegations, he's clearly guilty. No evidence required. When does Cosby report to prison for his sentence?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Guys! Relax! It's settled! Because an A-List celebrity has multiple sexual assault allegations, he's clearly guilty. No evidence required. When does Cosby report to prison for his sentence?

There seems to be maybe two people in here who are convinced he's a rapist.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's not the question, either. The question is, "Why would an A-List celebrity need to use a date-rape drug to have sex with anyone?" And we can add, "And went uncaught for decades, while being an extremely visible public figure, and fits a serial rapist profile?"

Your question is easily answerable with his 1982 allegation when a woman went back to his cabin (I assume) and claims she was drugged and molested. That doesn't add up. Unless, of course, this famous model was a sheltered Mormon who doesn't know what happens when you go back to a man's place (Mormons like that exist: trust me).

The shallow arguments you bring forth are exactly the reason why so many victims of rape never come forward. Just as a woman saying she was raped doesn't prove that that was the case, neither does a woman going to a cabin with a man mean that she can't have been raped.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just as a woman saying she was raped doesn't prove that that was the case, neither does a woman going to a cabin with a man mean that she can't have been raped.

Looks like you making my arguments for me under the false pretense that you're arguing against them. This is my point. We have nothing but accusations and some of those don't make sense without making ridiculous assumptions without evidence.

In a court of law, as I've stated probably 3 times now, a person is innocent until proven guilty. The way witch hunts work in the US, they are guilty until proven innocent. Sorry, it is not going to fly. It is improbable that he is a extremely rare type of criminal that has gotten away with serial rape for decades while being a highly visible celebrity. Accusations without evidence aren't going to cut it.

Public opinion does indeed not have to abide by legal tenets. People can go by which side they find more believable, and that's what is happening.

Originally posted by Robtard
There seems to be maybe two people in here who are convinced he's a rapist.

I'm not convinced he's innocent, though. I'm just not convinced he's a rapist, either. We have "first hand" accounts that he's an arrogant and possibly even narcissistic *******. I'm betting if I looked, we have firsthand accounts where he's being "super nice." But neither of those things are evidence that he's a rapist or just another "burn a celebrity at the stake" victim.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It is improbable that he is a extremely rare type of criminal that has gotten away with serial rape for decades while being a highly visible celebrity. Accusations without evidence aren't going to cut it.

Once again I'm not implying anything against Cosby but both Sommervile & Harris had the same length of career as Cosby going back to the 60's when they were finally exposed last year.
Both these entertainers would've been their country's version of Bill Cosby as far as a wholesome image that they protray to the public goes.

So I wouldn't conclude either improbable or rare as actions go.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Your question is easily answerable with his 1982 allegation when a woman went back to his cabin (I assume) and claims she was drugged and molested. That doesn't add up. Unless, of course, this famous model was a sheltered Mormon who doesn't know what happens when you go back to a man's place (Mormons like that exist: trust me).




Wh-what happens when you go back to a man's place?
Does something bad happen?

Does it still happen if you yourself are a man?
What if you went there by mistake or - or were just asking to use his phone ...?

What if you're not Mormon? Does it still count if you're not Mormon?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Looks like you've already convicted him with 0 evidence and still ignored all the counter-arguments I made to everything you stated in this post of yours. It's idiocy like this that makes me think people like you should lose the right to vote.i keep saying repeatedly i'm not saying he's guilty i'm just not giving him leverage for his celebrity status. you keep finding dumb ways to try to straw man my argument while citing latin fallacies to sound smart cause it's really important to you to always be right and win every conversation. that's why if i disagree with you it's hard to talk to you like a normal person cause you immediately go into battle mode and just want to prove that you can't be moved from some position you staked out.

like i said, i really could give a shit. let the jury decide if he's guilty or not. i take 4 women accusing him into consideration when judging the likelihood of him being a rapist just as much as i take him being a public target into consideration. i don't know him nor the women so it could really go either way at the end of the day.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i keep saying repeatedly i'm not saying he's guilty i'm just not giving him leverage for his celebrity status.

K.

Originally posted by red g jacks
you keep finding dumb ways to try to straw man my argument while citing latin fallacies to sound smart

I'm flattered that you think I am trying to sound smart. 313 But, nope, I've been using those debate fallacies since...well...debate class in high school.



Originally posted by red g jacks
cause it's really important to you to always be right and win every conversation.

If that were true, all you'd have to do is one or more of 4 things:

1. Concede points (not necessarily all of them).
2. Say you're wrong.
3. Say I'm right.
4. Stop posting.
5. Distract me with a completely irrelevant topic (same as #4 but it's easier to trick me, that way).


Originally posted by red g jacks
that's why if i disagree with you it's hard to talk to you like a normal person cause you immediately go into battle mode and just want to prove that you can't be moved from some position you staked out.

You only find it difficult because you cannot come up with any good arguments and you yourself are guilty of the things you accuse me of but in spades and with more fallacies.

But, deep down, you argue with me because you love me.

Originally posted by red g jacks
like i said, i really could give a shit.

You do or else you wouldn't respond. You care about me, my perspective, and how others view my points. You care quite a bit. Probably more so than what most others say. That's because I make very strong and logical arguments (regardless of whether or not they are right). If I was just another idiot posting bullshit (and there are those that do that around these parts), you'd just ignore them like you do those others. For me, it's a compliment that someone views my perspective with such high regard that they must respond and continue to reply so I don't squander the opportunity to engage a person back.

Originally posted by red g jacks
let the jury decide if he's guilty or not.

That's ("that is" = a jury trial or grand jury hearing) not going to happen. There's not enough for prosecution so a prosecutor will not file charges.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i take 4 women accusing him into consideration when judging the likelihood of him being a rapist just as much as i take him being a public target into consideration. i don't know him nor the women so it could really go either way at the end of the day.

I mostly agree with this statement but I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt when there is no evidence (because that is how our court system is generally supposed to work).

Now, if a photo turns up with him in it with a lady that is clearly out of it...hmm...that'd be a very quick way to make me flip-fop.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider


Wh-what happens when you go back to a man's place?

If you're going back to a famous male's vacation spot, and you're not a child (unless you're going with Michael Jackson), you can expect some sex and partying.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Does something bad happen?

Almost always not. For most, these are moments they cherish the rest of their lives, talking about them fondly with friends. Some report regret because the glamour and excitement get them caught up and they make decisions they wouldn't normally make.

Also, some celebs are super cool and give their fans party bags (you know, the ones that they bang). I believe A-Rod does this to the gals he sleeps with (if it isn't A-Rod, it is some other super-high-paid MLB player).

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Does it still happen if you yourself are a man?

I suppose the same can happen but those stories seem less frequent. Perhaps they are kept under wrap more?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What if you went there by mistake or - or were just asking to use his phone ...?

"Mr. Cosby, can we travel over a hundred miles to one of your vacation spots so I can make a phone call?"

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What if you're not Mormon? Does it still count if you're not Mormon?

Nope. Only Mormons are naive.

I think we should all wait for additional evidence to come out before we make conclusions.

Obviously we can't assume Bill Cosby is innocent simply because of who he is (I know, innocent until proven guilty is the legal rule, but in terms of forming beliefs, it's epistemologically irresponsible to credit someone with innocence a priori), but we also shouldn't be quick to jump to condeming him based on the accusations. I'll admit I don't know much about the case, but I've seen rape allegations that just piled on and that ended up being lots of hot air, but then I've also seen ones that turned out to be proven (Jimmy Savile being the biggest recent example). The fact that Cosby has been out of the spotlight for a while leads me to think this isn't some kind of targeted smear campaign, which makes me lean toward thinking he's guilty, though I haven't seen hard evidence that would back that up yet.

tl;dr: anything is possible at this point, so wait for further evidence to come through before taking solid positions on the case(s)

look i'm not gonna do the sentence by sentence thing cause that really annoys the shit out of me and removes most of the context of each sentence within the post and turns into a machine for creating 20 new arguments out of 1 petty disagreement.

i'll tell you like this. i thought your point about him swimming in pussy wasn't very good so i pointed it out. we can disagree on that it won't really break my heart i promise.

i 'don't care' about the verdict or whether he really raped them, not i don't care what you think. i know you're smart and i'll be honest you might even be smarter than me but you also seem incredibly uptight to me so basically you fired shots at me and i fired some back for fun in the midst of basically just saying the fact that he can get pussy doesn't make him any less a rapist suspect. that's my basic stance and beyond that i won't be following this case close enough to find out if you're right or wrong but eventually i'll hear about it through a third party. then maybe i'll get back to you and say you were onto something, or i'll rub it in that i was right.

Originally posted by red g jacks
look i'm not gonna do the sentence by sentence thing cause that really annoys the shit out of me

http://i.imgur.com/doUly.gif


Originally posted by red g jacks
and removes most of the context of each sentence within the post and turns into a machine for creating 20 new arguments out of 1 petty disagreement.

No it doesn't.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i'll tell you like this. i thought your point about him swimming in pussy wasn't very good so i pointed it out. we can disagree on that it won't really break my heart i promise.

Okay, fair enough. But the rumors are that he was swimming in poo-nanner.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The fact that Cosby has been out of the spotlight for a while leads me to think this isn't some kind of targeted smear campaign, which makes me lean toward thinking he's guilty, though I haven't seen hard evidence that would back that up yet.

This is a good point but others have analyzed this and come up with conclusions as to why these allegations took off: he was making a come-back.* A big come-back. Due to this attention, the accusations were made again but they "stuck" this time because of the traction he was getting in the press.

So, quite literally, these allegations are rearing their head and sticking around simply because of his resurgence in fame. Obviously, whether or not he is guilty is a different matter.

To put it more simply: even if all the allegations are part of a money-grabbing smear campaign, they would still stick due to the timing and variables surrounding the timing.


*These same accusations are not new things (I believe this same kind of situation popped up around 2005 but it didn't really go anywhere because Cosby was not as active in the entertainment community). What is new is that he was making a comeback.

lol i knew you would still respond like that too. and i believe bill cosby could get pussy, that was never in doubt. but he could be a secret pervert still. look at bundy. he was intelligent, attractive, successful. it doesn't gain you any credit in my book to be good with women when it comes to rape charges. kobe etc etc. (alright kobe was a little different but still)

Originally posted by red g jacks
lol i knew you would still respond like that too.

Face it: you know you love me. awesome

Originally posted by red g jacks
and i believe bill cosby could get pussy, that was never in doubt. but he could be a secret pervert still. look at bundy. he was intelligent, attractive, successful. it doesn't gain you any credit in my book to be good with women when it comes to rape charges. kobe etc etc. (alright kobe was a little different but still)


Weeeell, Ted Bundy is literally, the rarest type of rapist. He's not a really good comparison (rapists are significantly varied in how they do things with the only common denominator being that they sexual violate people). A better comparison to the accusations against Cosby is a college frat-boy who uses GHB to drug women's drinks. But even that doesn't stack up because the Frat-Boy would need to be swimming in poo-nanner, first, before a proper comparison can be made (and my understanding from the studies of young men who do that at universities is they are sexually frustrated and it is about control, which kind of rules out the "swimming in poo-nanner" part of the comparison).


Edit - I wish Lil B still posted. She has a Masters in Criminology and she can explain these things with far better deftness than I can.

i'm not saying he's exactly like bundy but if he date raped 4 random chicks when he was rich and famous as hell i would think he probably has some sort of ****ed up fetish or maybe he just got belligerent with the amount of power that wealth and fame can buy.

i know that's all hypothetical too so don't ask me how i know but i'm just saying it wouldn't really surprise me if that turned out to be true. and to be honest it wouldn't surprise me that much if these chicks had some sort of bad feelings about how he did them with consensual sex way back when and then one hops on the others bandwagon etc. i could honest realistically see this shit unfold either way.

Originally posted by red g jacks
i know that's all hypothetical too so don't ask me how i know but i'm just saying it wouldn't really surprise me if that turned out to be true. and to be honest it wouldn't surprise me that much if these chicks had some sort of bad feelings about how he did them with consensual sex way back when and then one hops on the others bandwagon etc. i could honest realistically see this shit unfold either way.

I do believe we are in agreement, good sir!

Originally posted by dadudemon
This is missed the point entirely. It is unnecessary to point out that rape isn't a purely sexual crime to a forum of adults who are almost all college educated.

You're also making the same mistake as Red: you're painting the picture of a very specific type of rapist without evidence. Do you wish to paint Bill Cosby as "Violent, Wrathful, and Controlling?"

You should know that there are multiple kinds of serial rapists: not just the violent, wrathful, controlling kind.


Here's the point you missed: Bill Cosby is accused of getting sexual gratification from people by drugging them. This does not fit the profile of a celebrity that has access to pretty much anyone. Violent type that you described? Yeah, I could see that from a celebrity. A date rape drug back in the early 80s? I dunno...maybe...but it seems stupid to use a drug to have sex with a woman that came back to your cabin.

"Because! Because! He's a rapist that wants the thrill and control!"

Oookay....that's not going to fly. This is an A-List celebrity. This is not some random dude. Even in 1982, Bill Cosby was famous. He could easily pay for this from a very expensive prostitution service. If you want this conversation to be about Bill Cosby living out power play fantasies with date rape drugs, you'll need to do more than use arguments that appeal to an irrelevant rapist profile.



Actually, it does. These allegations state he is drugging them and either molesting them or having sex with them. Basically, the accusation is he's drugging them and then getting sexual gratification. See above why it makes no sense to dismiss his A-List celebrity card.

Buddy, you genuinely asked this entire thread "why an a-list celebrity would need to drug somebody."

That's like, an actual question you asked. Because, as you pointed out, it "doesn't fit the profile."

Why would someone who can easily have sex, ever drug or rape someone?

Again...because rape is not a purely sexual crime. Why would you go out of your way to discredit that? That's...kinda scary, man.

Originally posted by Quincy
Buddy, you genuinely asked this entire thread "why an a-list celebrity would need to drug somebody."

That's like, an actual question you asked. Because, as you pointed out, it "doesn't fit the profile."

Why would someone who can easily have sex, ever drug or rape someone?

Again...because rape is not a purely sexual crime. Why would you go out of your way to discredit that? That's...kinda scary, man.


You did not address the content of my reply. Also, pointing out that there are different kinds of rapists is hardly scary. Lastly, stating that I am discrediting the notion that rape is not purely a sexual crime because I pointed out that there are multiple kinds of rapists and that it is obvious that rape is not a purely sexual crime, is so far up Convolution's ass that I am not sure what type of fallacy that is: argumentum ad absurdum?

Address the content of my reply rather than just repeating yourself and finishing off with a strawman. The burden of proof is on you, if you choose to label Bill Cosby as a Violent, Controlling, Aggressive rapist type (which doesn't even make sense since he's accused of being a drug-up and molest/rape kind of rapist which does not fit the typical profile of that rapist type (sexually frustrated and angry at women)).

Pretending to be scared of psychology solely for the sake of demonizing someone critical of your baseless accusations is pretty lame.

As people like you make more and more arguments for why you think Bill Cosby is either guilty or you think he could be guilty, the more it does not make sense.

There are now 15 accusations against Bill Cosby, by the way. 15. Red made a good point that if tons of people are accusing him of it, it's either a bandwagon or something real is going on. I am unsure if one side or the other should be given more attention or consideration because, as Bardock pointed out, this is part of the problem of scaring women into not reporting their attackers (and there are probably male victims in the same category): they'll be accused of trying to destroy someone, trying to money grab, or trying to get 15 minutes of fame.



But my question is....all of these adult rape victims and not a single one reported the assaults until now? Perhaps I am being too-optimistic but should not have at least 2, based on the statistics, reported it at the time and gotten an examination?

You're an interesting guy. It's strange, you seem to get needlessly flustered when someone says something to you or responds to you. I mean, I explained my response, and my response is not an acceptable response to you. You seem pretty smart, and clearly you've utilized a thesaurus in your long lifetime and your vocabulary is impressive, but you don't seem able to recognize my point at the absurdity of your question.

I thought it was pretty clear, but if I can't get through to you without you getting a little defensive, I guess I'm not explaining it correctly.

I mean, were you just asking rhetorically how a celebrity would ever feel the need to drug and molest somebody? You get what my response is, right?

This is heading towards a private message entitled "The Calm," I can feel it...

Anywho, the notion that Bill is a serial rapist perturbs me. I shall disregard such allegations until proof has been made available.

Originally posted by Quincy
You're an interesting guy. It's strange, you seem to get needlessly flustered when someone says something to you or responds to you.

This amounts to 2 things and I numbered them to make it easier to call attention to those 2 things:

1. Patronizing. As though you hold an imaginary position higher than I do to find me interesting such as a scientist examining an animal or a parent watching their child do things.
2. Using different words for "U mad."

Both of those things do not progress a conversation. It seeks to create contention. I can understand why people get upset with me because I point out horribly formed logic or misunderstanding. But to respond with childish content like this loses focus on the topic and turns it into a pissing match. If you want that, we can skip the actual content and I'll straight to calling you a poopooface.


Here's the problem with your approach:

Just because someone's argument is strong does not mean that they are "mad, bro." If you always assume everyone is angry and furious on the internet, you're going to have a bad time.

Originally posted by Quincy
I mean, I explained my response, and my response is not an acceptable response to you.

You're most likely referring to multiple responses, here, not just a single response, which contributes to a confusing wording in what you're actually trying to state, here. But, I can catch the drift of it. The problem is not the original response and then your explanation of your original response. The problem is you responded with the same thing but then added some strawman stuff again. To put it more simply and to illustrate where you are confused, You said blue, I said "you misunderstood. This isn't about blue. This is about 24." So you responded, "I said blue because blue is blue. Oh, and you're a doodoo head for false reason watermelon."


Originally posted by Quincy
You seem pretty smart, and clearly you've utilized a thesaurus in your long lifetime and your vocabulary is impressive,

Another "using words to confuse me" comment. Red said something similar.

Originally posted by Quincy
but you don't seem able to recognize my point at the absurdity of your question.

Just the opposite. You don't seem to understand why your grouping and labeling does not really fit. In other words, you still have yet to grasp my original point with the rhetorical question you were not supposed to answer.

Originally posted by Quincy
I thought it was pretty clear, but if I can't get through to you without you getting a little defensive, I guess I'm not explaining it correctly.

Here is your problem: you assume I'm getting defensive when that isn't the case. In fact, I'd say that almost no content in my replies are defensive: they are offensive. I am deconstructing and showing the factual issues with your "response." That's not "defense": that's offense.

Originally posted by Quincy
I mean, were you just asking rhetorically how a celebrity would ever feel the need to drug and molest somebody? You get what my response is, right?

Yeah, it seems like the issue is I'm already on #10 and you're still stuck on #2 but you have confused the idea of me for being on #10 as me still being stuck on #1. The real issues are I'm thinking, "Dude, come up here. You're still stuck back there." And you're thinking, "Man, he does not understand #1. How can get get #2?"

Originally posted by The_Tempest
This is heading towards a private message entitled "The Calm," I can feel it...

Anywho, the notion that Bill is a serial rapist perturbs me. I shall disregard such allegations until proof has been made available.


15 allegations have been made and he, apparently, settled privately in 2006 with one of the allegations.

Hey man, I'm sorry if I upset you. I didn't mean to patronize you. And find, we are agree - you are being offensive.

But to be fair, my question was "wait were you being rhetorical?" A simple "Oh yeah man, obviously I understand that even someone who can have sex on the regular is capable of raping someone."

But all of that extra stuff is fine too. I guess that's just the way you speak. It can be pretty hard to follow. You dont have to belittle me for it.

I'm genuinely impressed with your vocabulary man, I'm not trying to backhand compliment you or something. Its actually astounding.

But all this comes down to is you getting upset (and I know upset isn't the right word) that I said that rape isn't purely a sexual crime. And you didn't really "attack me" for it, but you kind of jumped on me and said that the point I was saying "doesn't matter" and "is irrelevant."

WTF, when the hell has Cosby ever been accused of doing anything harsher than eating a Pudding Pop? I went back and read over some of the people here believing these allegations, but what about his track record? Like WTF??? All this BS about scared to tell the truth, and all of that BS. Bigger people than the Cos have been tossed into the can for doing these kinds of things to people. If he comes out and says he did it, then that will be what happened, but as far as anyone knows, these females could actually be looking for a pay out. I understand that it could be true, but i also believe in Not guilty until proven otherwise. F@*k.

Originally posted by Quincy
Hey man, I'm sorry if I upset you. I didn't mean to patronize you. And find, we are agree - you are being offensive.

But to be fair, my question was "wait were you being rhetorical?" A simple "Oh yeah man, obviously I understand that even someone who can have sex on the regular is capable of raping someone."

But all of that extra stuff is fine too. I guess that's just the way you speak. It can be pretty hard to follow. You dont have to belittle me for it.

I'm genuinely impressed with your vocabulary man, I'm not trying to backhand compliment you or something. Its actually astounding.

But all this comes down to is you getting upset (and I know upset isn't the right word) that I said that rape isn't purely a sexual crime. And you didn't really "attack me" for it, but you kind of jumped on me and said that the point I was saying "doesn't matter" and "is irrelevant."

Is this the part where we rip our clothes off and touch our wieners together?

I promise not to drug you, first. awesome


Seriously, I promise, I was not upset nor am I ever upset in these types of conversations. I enjoy discussions like these.

Originally posted by Stoic
..but as far as anyone knows, these females could actually be looking for a pay out. I understand that it could be true, but i also believe in Not guilty until proven otherwise. F@*k.


Bardock42, I would appreciate if you could comment on this line of reasoning. Is it not harmful to assume women are just looking for a payout from a celebrity? But, also, I think what Stoic says here has merit: a payout happened in 2006 and the details are not being released. Is it possible that others have jumped on the bandwagon to get a payout simply because Cosby was making a break-out again?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Bardock42, I would appreciate if you could comment on this line of reasoning. Is it not harmful to assume women are just looking for a payout from a celebrity? But, also, I think what Stoic says here has merit: a payout happened in 2006 and the details are not being released. Is it possible that others have jumped on the bandwagon to get a payout simply because Cosby was making a break-out again?

People can't just jump to conclusions, and believe everything that is told to them. If this is the level that we are on, we may as well bring back Witch hunts.

If these are indeed false accusations, it may be one of the worst cases of slander in history, considering how it pretty much nuked his big planned comeback.

I don't believe Janis dickenson....her face lies

Originally posted by dadudemon
Seriously, I promise, I was not upset nor am I ever upset in these types of conversations. I enjoy discussions like these.

Are you implying that people that get upset in discussions are inferior to you? biscuits

Originally posted by Bentley
Are you implying that people that get upset in discussions are inferior to you? biscuits


If you choose to apply gradients of goodness to states of upsetness, calmness, and enjoyment; with the qualities being bad, indifferent, and good (respectively); then, yes, my enjoyment would be a superior state of being compared to those that get upset. Something something Buddhism.

DDM's mad again

I always gave, Cosby the benefit of the doubt through out the years when it came to the rape accusations. However, considering that there are still people speaking out decades later and, Cosby refuses to speak candidly on the subject concerns me enough to no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. Although, It's not important to me one way or the other.

Cosby what a sick old man

this dude is definitely guilty.

Just goes to show that fame is a fickle thing to hide behind.

Originally posted by Bentley
Are you implying that people that get upset in discussions are inferior to you? biscuits i would. they suck at life tbh.

So...so far 16 women with 16 allegations & (to my knowledge) no evidence to back up their claims.

Where does it go from here?

I mean Cosby's reputation & any hope for a career revival is completely beyond damage control...is that going to be justice enough?

Can any of these be brought to the court?

Oh please.

You know how women are.

It's bill cosby for ****s sake. dude was not a violent person. maybe a bit freaky

they after his money

Originally posted by Oneness
Oh please.

You know how women are.

Apparently you don't.

Originally posted by Oneness
It's bill cosby for ****s sake. dude was not a violent person. maybe a bit freaky

they after his money


After his money?
Seriously???

With no proof or evidence (so far) how do you think they're planning on getting his money?

Originally posted by Oneness
It's bill cosby for ****s sake. dude was not a violent person. maybe a bit freaky

You base this on his nice characters in popular sitcoms and tv shows?

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Apparently you don't. Dude....

They don't call it attention whore for no reason.

These bitches probably don't even know him. 6 joined a band wagon. The next 5 were probably inspired by the first one.

Bitches be trippin'.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You base this on his nice characters in popular sitcoms and tv shows? And based on his age.

I understand rape victims don't always report they were raped at first, but why would six women come out of the blue as soon as he makes a come back on a stand-up sitcom.

They won't be able to sue him, but they'd get attention.

Then again, by the fact that he wouldn't say no and instead would say no comment means two things, he's like my dad and the idea of him raping someone pisses him off or that he feels guilt.

So what it probably is, is that they were jealous of his past relations, upset that he left them. Think about how much money he made, that's what drives women to date and what drives them to slander.

I'm a victim how certain people are raised, Esau.

Originally posted by Oneness
And based on his age.

I understand rape victims don't always report they were raped at first, but why would six women come out of the blue as soon as he makes a come back on a stand-up sitcom.

They won't be able to sue him, but they'd get attention.



Yes, they would get attention. The attention of getting sued for slander & defamation....these women would be utterly destroyed by Cosby's legal team.

You & so many people are quick to label them as nothing more than "attention whores". You forget that they're mothers & wives also, some of them probably grandmothers by this stage too.

16 women so far...are you honestly saying that all of them are bitter & money hungry enough to jeapordise not only their families but their current careers as well?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You base this on his nice characters in popular sitcoms and tv shows? i can only imagine him giving theo pointers on how to slip it in their drink inconspicuously

Originally posted by Oneness
Dude....

They don't call it attention whore for no reason.

These bitches probably don't even know him. 6 joined a band wagon. The next 5 were probably inspired by the first one.

Hey man, don't call them bitches. Uncool

Originally posted by Oneness
And based on his age.

Older people are beyond drugging and raping?

Some of these allegations go back 40 years, putting Cosby in his 30's. Is that rape-age-capable enough for you?

Just read a news story where Cosby got a 15 year old girl into the Playboy mansion, told her to say she was 18, and then sexually assaulted her (this is not sexual acts with a minor, the wording was "assult" which means it is forced).

If there is any corroborating evidence to this, at all, this sinks the boat for Cosby, imo. This stops being a "well, these are all evidence-less accusations" and starts becoming, "Well, how many of these accusations can stick in a court of law?"


Are there photos of Cosby with this gal at the Playboy mansion? IIRC, bringing a minor to an adult "event" is grounds for criminal charges, in and of itself, much less the sexual assault charge. Also, semen.....semen....


Don't forget about semen. If she was assaulted and semen came (no pun intended, ffs, don't make sexual assault of a minor into a joke, please) into the picture, that should be more than enough evidence. IF his semen is on any of her clothing or person, there's no way to argue out of that.

Unfortunately, I bet you that no evidence was collected, at all, and there is nothing to indicate that this event actually happened so it's just another "he said she said" situation.

As I said "40 years", I doubt in the case you're referring to, the minor keep some jizz covered article of clothing as a memento for four decades.

Originally posted by Robtard
As I said "40 years", I doubt in the case you're referring to, the minor keep some jizz covered article of clothing as a memento for four decades.

Wait, the 15 year old thing was 40 years ago????

Bill Cosby accused in lawsuit of molesting girl in 1974

"Bill Cosby was sued on Tuesday by a woman alleging he molested her in 1974 at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles when she was 15, in what is believed to be the first court case arising from a recent wave of sexual misconduct accusations against the comedian." -end snip

I hope they pull his star off hollywood boulevard.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I hope they pull his star off hollywood boulevard.

Nah...juz change it to pill-shaped.

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Nah...juz change it to pill-shaped.

Or put Chris Hansen looking in from the side like so:

http://i.imgur.com/RLYqFex.jpg

I dont think ANY ARE TRUE!!


THEY WAIT 26 YEARS And then all say this AT THE SAME TIME??

Its a scam to get $$$$$$$!!

Remote control devices now help us a lot such as for the TV we can just use the remote control to turn on and also turn off the TV easily and we can also change teh channels via the remote control at the same time as well and the car remote control also give us a lot of convenience as well at the same time. But there are also a lot of people now are being monitored via the remote comytrol devices and trapped in the trouble if so now it is really the time for them to use the car remote jamming to help solve such kind of condition and gain the safety environment as well.

Originally posted by DaltonVidra
Remote control devices now help us a lot such as for the TV we can just use the remote control to turn on and also turn off the TV easily and we can also change teh channels via the remote control at the same time as well and the car remote control also give us a lot of convenience as well at the same time. But there are also a lot of people now are being monitored via the remote comytrol devices and trapped in the trouble if so now it is really the time for them to use the car remote jamming to help solve such kind of condition and gain the safety environment as well.

It's nearly 2015 & you just realised what that little black box with the buttons do does?

Originally posted by DaltonVidra
Remote control devices now help us a lot such as for the TV we can just use the remote control to turn on and also turn off the TV easily and we can also change teh channels via the remote control at the same time as well and the car remote control also give us a lot of convenience as well at the same time. But there are also a lot of people now are being monitored via the remote comytrol devices and trapped in the trouble if so now it is really the time for them to use the car remote jamming to help solve such kind of condition and gain the safety environment as well.

It's nearly 2015 & you just realised what that little black box with the buttons does?

You have to remember that in the 60's and 70's if you were a celebrity of fame, that was a different era. Cocaine use was normal for these people as were pills and some rather wild times were going on. So I would not rule some of this stuff happening. The only thing is why bring it up now? Decades ago this happened and if ties into something that happened recently it makes sense. But why not file a police report instead of running to TMZ and the Enquirer?

Cosby admits drugging
http://time.com/3947272/bill-cosby-drugged-women-quaalude-news/

Originally posted by SayWhat
You have to remember that in the 60's and 70's if you were a celebrity of fame, that was a different era. Cocaine use was normal for these people as were pills and some rather wild times were going on. So I would not rule some of this stuff happening. The only thing is why bring it up now? Decades ago this happened and if ties into something that happened recently it makes sense. But why not file a police report instead of running to TMZ and the Enquirer?

I too have asked this. I know that he just admitted to drugging a few women, but it still makes me wonder why they waited so long to say anything. I know the automatic response is "sometimes rape victims are afraid to say anything or are so traumatized they don't say anything". Which is fine, but then when they *do* finally speak it should be to the police, not newspapers and definitely not TMZ.

So I'm hoping you got a detail wrong, because how could NONE of them file a police report, yet claim in the media he raped them? There was a bunch of women making this claim. Tell me at least HALF of them filed a police report eventually.

Though he admitted to the drugging back in 2005, how did it take this long for it to come out? If the files were sealed, why were they magically unsealed now?

Originally posted by Surtur
Though he admitted to the drugging back in 2005, how did it take this long for it to come out? If the files were sealed, why were they magically unsealed now?

Because that lawsuit was settled under "confidential terms", basically the woman he drugged and raped took a settlement (money) to not talk about it again, would be my guess.

Originally posted by Lestov16
Cosby admits drugging
http://time.com/3947272/bill-cosby-drugged-women-quaalude-news/

He only admits to procuring a prescription muscle relaxant that increases sexual arousal and offering it to women with whom he has sex, and the complainants acknowledge taking it of their own volition.

Even if we presume for the sake of argument that he administered this drug surreptitiously, why would he give them a drug to enhance their sexual experience if his intention was to have sex with them while they are unconscious? It does not make sense.

^^^No joke.

So he was a bit of a freak So WHAT?
It was consensual.
Defamation lawsuits, rape allegations a bazillion years after the fact...i call BS. The guy was a comedian with a kid's show on saturday morning, not Lucky frikking Luciano.
Its not like they were gonna get rubbed out by the Fat Albert & The Cosby Kid mafia for coming forward at the time.

And no i'm not trying to be flippant.

This is an insult to real rape victims who DO come forward, despite the very real threat of retribution for doing so.

Originally posted by riv6672
^^^No joke.

So he was a bit of a freak So WHAT?
It was consensual.
Defamation lawsuits, rape allegations a bazillion years after the fact...i call BS. The guy was a comedian with a kid's show on saturday morning, not Lucky frikking Luciano.
Its not like they were gonna get rubbed out by the Fat Albert & The Cosby Kid mafia for coming forward at the time.

And no i'm not trying to be flippant.

This is an insult to real rape victims who DO come forward, despite the very real threat of retribution for doing so.

Real rape victims don't come forward immediately or ever for a multitude of reasons (one of them being the readiness of people to side with the accused against them).

Cosby should be in prison.