Bill Cosby Rape Allegations

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 dadudemon
[B

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. [/B]

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.