It certainly isn't proven 100% that gender differences are 100% nature or 100% nurtureYou have an extra 100% in there that I did not.Without an implied 100% I don't understand your original statement:
"Nature isn't 100% proven therefore it must be nurture isn't a reasonable goalpost."What isn't 100% proven? That nature has some effect? Yeah, that's pretty much known.
Known yes. Not always believed though.
A couple of fun posts I dug out of my DJdD archives:
No trained scientist nor anthropologist, I, but fun debate in academia:
Vs.
Man, I forgot all about that Dangeous Minds website! Wonder what they've been up to...
Oh, actually, you guys should like this:
La Principessa was sad earlier today and needed me to cheer her up. So I grabbed some books off the shelf and started reading her poetry. You know what she liked? Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress". Hee hee!
|
I don't know if this was discussed already, but I just learned of this:
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/lewin-courses-removed-1208
Essentially, Walter Lewin, the man who helped millions around the wolrd learn physics, sexually harassed women online. He was revoked his professor emeritus status and his lectures were removed.
One the one hand, I am shocked. He definitely was helpful when I was studying physics. He seemed so genuinely good - inspiring, energetic, smart. He was everything one wanted in a teacher. That he could be this messed up is disquieting.I fully support punishing the man in full accordance with the law.
On the other hand, I can't help but be angry that his videos were removed from the website. I mean, Mein Kampf was never banned because of it's author (despite, unlike the physics lectures, having a relation to the evil of the man who wrote it and being quit harmful as a book) but I suppose that orchestrating the largest scale genocide and possibly the most hideous war that the world has ever known is a small crime compared to sexual harassment.
Oh, actually, you guys should like this:
La Principessa was sad earlier today and needed me to cheer her up. So I grabbed some books off the shelf and started reading her poetry. You know what she liked? Marvell's "To His Coy Mistress". Hee hee!
Huh... Despite the best efforts of my highschool teachers, the only poetry I've ever learned was The Tyger, by William Blake... And only because of Wolverine comics...
I don't know if this was discussed already, but I just learned of this:
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/lewin-courses-removed-1208
Essentially, Walter Lewin, the man who helped millions around the wolrd learn physics, sexually harassed women online. He was revoked his professor emeritus status and his lectures were removed.
One the one hand, I am shocked. He definitely was helpful when I was studying physics. He seemed so genuinely good - inspiring, energetic, smart. He was everything one wanted in a teacher. That he could be this messed up is disquieting.I fully support punishing the man in full accordance with the law.
On the other hand, I can't help but be angry that his videos were removed from the website. I mean, Mein Kampf was never banned because of it's author (despite, unlike the physics lectures, having a relation to the evil of the man who wrote it and being quit harmful as a book) but I suppose that orchestrating the largest scale genocide and possibly the most hideous war that the world has ever known is a small crime compared to sexual harassment.
I have a similar problem with the Cosby boycotts. Just because the guy turned out to be a douche behind closed doors doesn't mean that his the material that was put out and in the public eye was. It is still as good as it always was for its purpose.
"Following broad consultation among faculty, MIT is indefinitely removing Lewin’s online courses, in the interest of preventing any further inappropriate behavior." How does removing the guys recorded lectures prevent future harassment? Sure, I understand removing him from being the teacher, and if appropriate prosecuting him, - that just makes sense. But why remove the educational material he created? We used nazi diagrams in modern medical textbooks for the past 50 years. Just because something was spawned in a tragedy doesn't mean good can't spring out of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Concerning Bill Cosby: the statute of limitations has run out on nearly all the claims of rape I believe. The ONLY way to punish him at this point is to deprive him of money/fame.
I think raping women deserves to be punished. While I can't know for 100% certainty that he's guilty, the preponderance of evidence (the number of accusations and the consistent level of specific details) makes me feel very confident that he is guilty.
I am not a court of law, I get to set my own standards. He's a scumbag. I've never been a big fan of listening to scumbags talk.
Concerning Bill Cosby: the statute of limitations has run out on nearly all the claims of rape I believe. The ONLY way to punish him at this point is to deprive him of money/fame.
I think raping women deserves to be punished. While I can't know for 100% certainty that he's guilty, the preponderance of evidence (the number of accusations and the consistent level of specific details) makes me feel very confident that he is guilty.
I am not a court of law, I get to set my own standards. He's a scumbag. I've never been a big fan of listening to scumbags talk.
Remind me to never let anyone speak ill of me within earshot of you.
Pfft. I've felt that way since the "Your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30" tirades, but, to each their own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remind me to never let anyone speak ill of me within earshot of you.Concerning Bill Cosby: the statute of limitations has run out on nearly all the claims of rape I believe. The ONLY way to punish him at this point is to deprive him of money/fame.
I think raping women deserves to be punished. While I can't know for 100% certainty that he's guilty, the preponderance of evidence (the number of accusations and the consistent level of specific details) makes me feel very confident that he is guilty.
I am not a court of law, I get to set my own standards. He's a scumbag. I've never been a big fan of listening to scumbags talk.
Do you consider yourself to be in the category of "serial rapist"? Because that is how I would describe the allegations against Bill Cosby.
For the moment, let's assume that half of the women coming forward are lying, and half are telling the truth. I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and round it in his favor. That means 17 women have lied, while he's raped or sexually assaulted the other 16 of them.
I'm not a big fan of people who have raped one person, let alone 16. So no, I'm not really interested in hearing him talk.
Would you consider yourself to be in a similar league with Mr. Cosby?
I'm no saint myself. I've done bad things at various points in my life. I know no one is perfect. I have no time for an unrepentant rapist though. Sorry if you find that disconcerting.
edit: to add, there are so many other funny people out there, other tv shows to watch, etc... I don't need to spend time watching him. I have other options available to me. I will spend my attention on people I don't think have done things I find morally reprehensible.
I have a similar issue revolving around gamergate. The CEO of a company I have previous bought things from said some things I found shocking. He was purposely using his standing as a CEO of a company to say things that I didn't just disagree with, but I found to be repugnant. I'm not spending my money on their products any more. There are enough other games where I can play them without thinking about providing him financial support, that I see no reason to give him my money any more. I was a big fan of that company too, one game I had bought three retail versions (two so I could run both machines online and a third as a gift). I bought a collectors edition of another at $100. I'm done now as a customer, because he decided to use his company as a platform to express disgusting views.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Pull your pants up!"
[Punches Bill Cosby]
Yeah, I didn't feel disgusted with him at that point, but I started to not care about him around then too.
Was re-reading that article about Sex at Dawn, realized I hadn't been to CounterPunch in a while, found an article by fellow Trots saying not so nice things about our old friend Elizabeth Warren, decided to post it for shiznits and giggles.
Still a Puppet of the Democratic Party: What the AFL-CIO Did Not Say About Raising Wages
Then I went and found that famous Against "Sociobiology" article Stephen Jay Gould signed onto back in the seventies.
I might want to look at that if I decide to actually do any reading about anthropology and evolutionary psychology; I might get distracted.
Back when I was a young goblin militant, you could also get the good Prof. Gould to endorse an anti-fascist demonstration.
[Clenched fist salute]
|
|
I don't know if this was discussed already, but I just learned of this:
http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/lewin-courses-removed-1208
Essentially, Walter Lewin, the man who helped millions around the wolrd learn physics, sexually harassed women online. He was revoked his professor emeritus status and his lectures were removed.
One the one hand, I am shocked. He definitely was helpful when I was studying physics. He seemed so genuinely good - inspiring, energetic, smart. He was everything one wanted in a teacher. That he could be this messed up is disquieting.I fully support punishing the man in full accordance with the law.
On the other hand, I can't help but be angry that his videos were removed from the website. I mean, Mein Kampf was never banned because of it's author (despite, unlike the physics lectures, having a relation to the evil of the man who wrote it and being quit harmful as a book) but I suppose that orchestrating the largest scale genocide and possibly the most hideous war that the world has ever known is a small crime compared to sexual harassment.
There's a difference between banning a book and one institution not continuing to distribute some courses.
I believe Mein Kampf has been banned by many different countries at different times, including the US. Probably also banned on state or local levels. And more directly comparable, publishing houses have likely chosen not to print it due to its content/author.
Sure, there's a difference (except that really only that one institution is where the lectures were, so it's mostly a theoretical difference). There is also quite a wide gap between being Hitler and being Walter Lewin.
I was using an extreme example, but I believe my point stands. The man's lectures in physics have nothing to do with his crimes, and little to do with any other aspect of him.
There are plenty of books written by convicted criminals - some were actually written in jail. Many of those authors did way worse that online sexual harassment - and yet they *were* published. And, unlike MIT, it seemed the publishers, bookstores, and public did not believe that allowing the publishing of such books would encourage similar behavior to the one of the people who wrote them.
Or, let's take an example from our field of interest - H.P Lovecraft himself might not be a sexual offender (not that I am aware of, anyway) but he was certainly a racist, sexist bastard. Not the kind of man I would endorse being a friend of. But as most of us would agree, that is no reason not to read his books, discuss them and just generally view them separately from the man itself. If one can accept that - and most do - then it is apparent that the difference between Lewin and Lovecraft in this regard is only the severity of their crimes. And, unlike Lovecraft, Lewins' public work does not contain the vile nature of his behavior - from watching his lectures you don't get even a hint of what he truly is.
I honestly believe that the video was taken down not because it is the right thing to do on a moral level, but for political and financial reasons. Political because MIT understandably do not want to be associated with Lewin any more, and financial because there's some chance that they might get sued with the charges of not providing protection to the victims in the online environment they created. The only losers from this move are the millions who could have learned to love physics from those wonderful lectures.
One thing I don't see people understanding when discussing evopsych here...
Offspring is the selection criterium for evolution, true.
That does in no way mean it is the direct point of our adaptations.
Sex brings offspring, this is generally true. Those who like sex have more of it, thus more offspring. This means that ANY somewhat reasonable behaviour that increases sexual frequency WILL BE SELECTED FOR - and not because that behaviour specifically gets us offspring.
So anytime someone does something that increases their attractiveness to others, it's done because it feels good to do so, which happens because it was selected for - but we don't make ourselves pretty or handsome because we want children, we do it because it gives us rewards in and of itself.
Why we do it != why evolution has made us want it.
If you doubt this: Why do the sperm banks have such a difficult time recruiting donors?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Captain Caveman, when his material and sexual needs were met, lived in relatively peaceful, egalitarian, sexually promiscuous bands. And when they weren't, he behaved beastly?The problem is that for a male human "sexual needs fulfilled" is almost an oxymoron. The number of kids a male human can have is practically limitless. There's always a drive for more with more partners, and more resources to attract more partners.
Speak for yourself. There are plenty of men whose sexual needs are fulfilled.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a similar issue revolving around gamergate. The CEO of a company I have previous bought things from said some things I found shocking. He was purposely using his standing as a CEO of a company to say things that I didn't just disagree with, but I found to be repugnant. I'm not spending my money on their products any more. There are enough other games where I can play them without thinking about providing him financial support, that I see no reason to give him my money any more. I was a big fan of that company too, one game I had bought three retail versions (two so I could run both machines online and a third as a gift). I bought a collectors edition of another at $100. I'm done now as a customer, because he decided to use his company as a platform to express disgusting views.I'll bite. Who was it, what did he say, and how did he use his standing as CEO to say it?
I've shared all I feel like sharing on that story. I have no interest in getting into a debate about gamergate. It's such a non-story it deserves as little attention as possible.
I stand by my decision. It's my money, I get to choose who I give it to and I can use any method I see fit.
Speak for yourself. There are plenty of men whose sexual needs are fulfilled.So Captain Caveman, when his material and sexual needs were met, lived in relatively peaceful, egalitarian, sexually promiscuous bands. And when they weren't, he behaved beastly?The problem is that for a male human "sexual needs fulfilled" is almost an oxymoron. The number of kids a male human can have is practically limitless. There's always a drive for more with more partners, and more resources to attract more partners.
I'm sure there are, but evolution works on trends and numbers games. Like blackjack, good play can increase your chances in the long run even if you can't possibly win every hand.
|
|
I honestly believe that the video was taken down not because it is the right thing to do on a moral level, but for political and financial reasons. Political because MIT understandably do not want to be associated with Lewin any more, and financial because there's some chance that they might get sued with the charges of not providing protection to the victims in the online environment they created. The only losers from this move are the millions who could have learned to love physics from those wonderful lectures.Anything done by a large company or similar institution is being done for political or financial reasons. Or at least that's the default assumption.
Sure, though I was engaging the issue on the level of principals, not pragmatism. It's not an uncommon thing to do - whenever any company takes a stance on a social issue, very few people just flat out talk about the fact that the company is likely motivated by ulterior financial - and not social - motives. So you can end every discussion on whether or not some institution should or shouldn't have done something with a shrug and a "it's about money anyway", but that's not terribly interesting.
In my post, I was attempting to say that the financial/public-image concerns are the only legitimate ones in this case.
I think it is time we talk about the extreme sexism in gangsta rap.
A NSFW sexist musical interlude. (you may have to sign into youtube to view the adult content)
Guns don't kill people, I kill people; with guns!
Appalling, isn't it? =P
Remind me to never let anyone speak ill of me within earshot of you.Concerning Bill Cosby: the statute of limitations has run out on nearly all the claims of rape I believe. The ONLY way to punish him at this point is to deprive him of money/fame.
I think raping women deserves to be punished. While I can't know for 100% certainty that he's guilty, the preponderance of evidence (the number of accusations and the consistent level of specific details) makes me feel very confident that he is guilty.
I am not a court of law, I get to set my own standards. He's a scumbag. I've never been a big fan of listening to scumbags talk.
Do you consider yourself to be in the category of "serial rapist"? Because that is how I would describe the allegations against Bill Cosby.
For the moment, let's assume that half of the women coming forward are lying, and half are telling the truth. I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and round it in his favor. That means 17 women have lied, while he's raped or sexually assaulted the other 16 of them.
I'm not a big fan of people who have raped one person, let alone 16. So no, I'm not really interested in hearing him talk.
Would you consider yourself to be in a similar league with Mr. Cosby?
I'm no saint myself. I've done bad things at various points in my life. I know no one is perfect. I have no time for an unrepentant rapist though. Sorry if you find that disconcerting.
edit: to add, there are so many other funny people out there, other tv shows to watch, etc... I don't need to spend time watching him. I have other options available to me. I will spend my attention on people I don't think have done things I find morally reprehensible.
I have a similar issue revolving around gamergate. The CEO of a company I have previous bought things from said some things I found shocking. He was purposely using his standing as a CEO of a company to say things that I didn't just disagree with,...
You've already made up your mind, I guess the best I could hope for is that you aren't on the jury.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a culture like the American one, there is good money to be made in accusing people of various crimes, particularly if they are wealthy, and if others have made similar accusations, it also helps. Thus, I don't really understand the idea that if thirty people have made accusations, it's a matter of how many are true accusations. It seems quite possible that none are. That said, I have read nothing about the Cosby cases.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a culture like the American one, there is good money to be made in accusing people of various crimes, particularly if they are wealthy, and if others have made similar accusations, it also helps. Thus, I don't really understand the idea that if thirty people have made accusations, it's a matter of how many are true accusations. It seems quite possible that none are. That said, I have read nothing about the Cosby cases.
It is equally possible all are true though. A number of the women who have accused Cosby are quite successful and in many ways have more to lose by an accusation than gain, true or not.
There is already a lot of stigma attached to being a rape victim in the U.S. and the honesty and virtue of victims of rape are called into question far more than the victims of any other crime, it's not exactly an easy road revealing a sexual assault from someone as well liked and respected as Cosby.
I don't know what to say, really... Except "damages".
It would be a better world without ambulance chasers, frivolous lawsuits, legal opportunists and such people, but they do exist, and wherever they can get money is where they will be.
Many daggers find a falling camel's back. Of course, it is quite possible he did do those things, but if so, the courts will have to decide, not the general public.
You've already made up your mind, I guess the best I could hope for is that you aren't on the jury.Remind me to never let anyone speak ill of me within earshot of you.Concerning Bill Cosby: the statute of limitations has run out on nearly all the claims of rape I believe. The ONLY way to punish him at this point is to deprive him of money/fame.
I think raping women deserves to be punished. While I can't know for 100% certainty that he's guilty, the preponderance of evidence (the number of accusations and the consistent level of specific details) makes me feel very confident that he is guilty.
I am not a court of law, I get to set my own standards. He's a scumbag. I've never been a big fan of listening to scumbags talk.
Do you consider yourself to be in the category of "serial rapist"? Because that is how I would describe the allegations against Bill Cosby.
For the moment, let's assume that half of the women coming forward are lying, and half are telling the truth. I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and round it in his favor. That means 17 women have lied, while he's raped or sexually assaulted the other 16 of them.
I'm not a big fan of people who have raped one person, let alone 16. So no, I'm not really interested in hearing him talk.
Would you consider yourself to be in a similar league with Mr. Cosby?
I'm no saint myself. I've done bad things at various points in my life. I know no one is perfect. I have no time for an unrepentant rapist though. Sorry if you find that disconcerting.
Since you actually seem to be serious about this:
Do you really apply this in everyday life? Do you really think everyone should as a general rule?
Think nothing bad of anyone or take any actions based on such opinions without an actual jury trial?
If, for example, you'd heard these stories much earlier, would you advise a female friend to be careful about...
given the history of black men in this country being brutally killed without ever seeing the inside of a court room after being accused of raping/looking at/whistling at a white woman, I strongly believe that an impartial legal system should be involved and their decision should be respected, guilty or innocent.
I would strongly recommend that got amend your statement with respect to "taking action based on opinion without a jury trial"- you have essentially given a thumbs up to lynching.
Oh snap...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what to say, really... Except "damages".
It would be a better world without ambulance chasers, frivolous lawsuits, legal opportunists and such people, but they do exist, and wherever they can get money is where they will be.
Many daggers find a falling camel's back. Of course, it is quite possible he did do those things, but if so, the courts will have to decide, not the general public.
No duh. Even for the "damages".
Or more accurately only for the damages, if those are even possible now, since the statute of limitations has passed, I believe. At least for most of them.
OTOH, as I said above, for those of us not involved in determining legal guilt or legal civil responsibility, we have to rely on our own judgement and our own standards to determine how we respond to such allegations. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Outside of it, we are and should be free to judge as we see fit.
Judge, then. How about jury and executioner, is that also up to you as you see fit, thejeff?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nobody has an obligation to stand by anyone else in any situation. We choose to. If one of my loved ones were accused of something terrible, I would stand by them, as I would expect most to do if it happened to theirs. If someone is accused of something, I can understand if people suspend interaction until the courts have decided.
However, people giving themselves the right to publicly denounce someone as a criminal because of accusations? Disgusting. This is specifically the reason we have courts, so that people don't get judged by the nearest interested lynch mob or demagogue.
When the matter is decided, that is when you call someone a rapist.
1: Don't believe everything you see on TV, including the news reports.
2: Our legal system is full of BS and very heavily dependent on money and race. Many cases are settled for big money with a gag order and no admission of wrongdoing.
In the case of Cosby, I look at the women coming forward and try to judge their honesty, based on many factors including what they might gain or lose from coming forward. However, celebrities, politicians, and advocates are often targeted for smear campaigns, or outright set up for crimes. Since these people often live in worlds of fantasy (fame), and have a lot to lose, it is generally a lot harder to establish truth then with normal people.
EDIT:
"In early March 1966, several media outlets, including The New Republic and The New York Times, reported that GM had tried to discredit Nader, hiring private detectives to tap his phones and investigate his past, and hiring prostitutes to trap him in compromising situations.[17][18] Nader sued the company for invasion of privacy and settled the case for $425,000. "
Since you actually seem to be serious about this:
Do you really apply this in everyday life? Do you really think everyone should as a general rule?
Think nothing bad of anyone or take any actions based on such opinions without an actual jury trial?
If, for example, you'd heard these stories much earlier, would you advise a female friend to be careful about being in private with Mr. Cosby or tell her to go right ahead, since he was innocent, not having been found guilty by a jury?
It's a wonderful principle for criminal prosecution. It's a horribly stupid one for everyday life.given the history of black men in this country being brutally killed without ever seeing the inside of a court room after being accused of raping/looking at/whistling at a white woman, I strongly believe that an impartial legal system should be involved and their decision should be respected, guilty or innocent.
I would strongly recommend that got amend your statement with respect to "taking action based on opinion without a jury trial"- you have essentially given a thumbs up to lynching.
That was far from my intention, which I thought would be clear from the example question or the "think bad of anyone" part.
By actions, I meant things that had previously been discussed here like boycotts. Not taking the law into my own hands.
If that wasn't clear, I'm sorry.
It wasn't.
That said, boycotts are more than fair play. If he has lost your patronage, then he has lost it. But I would encourage that boycotts and similar actions be applied as part of public pressure to pursue justice, not schadenfreude.
I think the general question still stands though: Does one have an obligation to retain his previous opinion and any previous financial patronage of, or personal associations with, someone accused of crimes, until and unless those crimes are proven in a court of law?
obligation? No. But they too should be pushing for a trial so that the party, if guilty, can be punished and punished severely- or exonerated.
If one friend of your was accused of rape by another, would you feel obligated to stand by the accused until and unless he was proven guilty, even if the accuser's story was persuasive?
as stated above, I would push for a trial. Rape is a crime too serious to rely upon actions and emotions outside of a legal system to provide justice. I would push for a trial here, too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what to say, really... Except "damages".
It would be a better world without ambulance chasers, frivolous lawsuits, legal opportunists and such people, but they do exist, and wherever they can get money is where they will be.
Many daggers find a falling camel's back. Of course, it is quite possible he did do those things, but if so, the courts will have to decide, not the general public.
No duh. Even for the "damages".
Or more accurately only for the damages, if those are even possible now, since the statute of limitations has passed, I believe. At least for most of them.
OTOH, as I said above, for those of us not involved in determining legal guilt or legal civil responsibility, we have to rely on our own judgement and our own standards to determine how we respond to such allegations. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Outside of it, we are and should be free to judge as we see fit.
Except in certain situations supposedly, like who we hire and fire, who we do business with, who we allow in public buildings or not...etc.
In fact supposedly, there's laws against racism...but if Cosby was a white man...he'd be treated like Jay Leno (similar accusations, but swept under the rug enough that Jay Leno took a swipe at Cosby over the same type of things)...or get to the top political offices like the Ex-governor of California or President of the United States (Clinton).
It's amazing the difference how we treat someone depending on whether they are African American...or not.
Now Cosby is not having as much work, but Jay Leno seems untouchable, Clinton is a respected advisor...and Arnold...well...he's still Arnold.
Edit: And as Freehold has mentioned, there needs to be a trial. In the US it HAS been, innocent until proven guilty until recently...
Now you can be tried and convicted in the media for crimes before you even have a trial.
That said, until it is cleared up, I MAY advise ladies to be careful around certain personages...but I'm not going to hold that person as guilty until it looks less like a political slam campaign, and more like a legitimate grievance (and there are STILL legal options...but interestingly enough...NONE of the accusers have taken that route yet. If they do NOT...it DOES leave a ton of questions on why they accuse, but don't push for legal options as well).
The bigger question and most legitimate one that I've heard thus far, is many of those women were supposedly NOT on birth control...was Cosby just remarkably lucky (even Arnold wasn't that lucky, neither was Edwards if I recall right, and those are more recent and less women)...or where are the babies/kids.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the US it HAS been, innocent until proven guilty until recently...
It has never been "innocent until proven guilty". It is innocent until accused by the State. Then you can be jailed for several years. The entire Grand Jury system is directly against innocent until proven guilty.
There is no functional presumption of innocence in the US legal system.
I don't know what to say, really... Except "damages".
It would be a better world without ambulance chasers, frivolous lawsuits, legal opportunists and such people, but they do exist, and wherever they can get money is where they will be.
Many daggers find a falling camel's back. Of course, it is quite possible he did do those things, but if so, the courts will have to decide, not the general public.
No duh. Even for the "damages".
Or more accurately only for the damages, if those are even possible now, since the statute of limitations has passed, I believe. At least for most of them.
OTOH, as I said above, for those of us not involved in determining legal guilt or legal civil responsibility, we have to rely on our own judgement and our own standards to determine how we respond to such allegations. "Innocent until proven guilty" only applies in a court of law. Outside of it, we are and should be free to judge as we see fit.
Except in certain situations supposedly, like who we hire and fire, who we do business with, who we allow in public buildings or not...etc.
In fact supposedly, there's laws against racism...but if Cosby was a white man...he'd be treated like Jay Leno (similar accusations, but swept under the rug enough that Jay Leno took a swipe at Cosby over the same type of things)...or get to the top political offices like the Ex-governor of California or President of the United States (Clinton).
It's amazing the difference how we treat someone depending on whether they are African American...or not.
Now Cosby is not having as much work, but Jay Leno seems untouchable, Clinton is a respected advisor...and Arnold...well...he's still Arnold.
Edit: And as Freehold has mentioned, there needs to be a trial. In the US it HAS been, innocent until proven guilty until recently...
Now you can be tried and convicted in the media for crimes before you even have a trial.
That said, until it is cleared up, I MAY advise ladies to be...
I think you might be confusing Leno for Letterman.
...Remind me to never let anyone speak ill of me within earshot of you.Concerning Bill Cosby: the statute of limitations has run out on nearly all the claims of rape I believe. The ONLY way to punish him at this point is to deprive him of money/fame.
I think raping women deserves to be punished. While I can't know for 100% certainty that he's guilty, the preponderance of evidence (the number of accusations and the consistent level of specific details) makes me feel very confident that he is guilty.
I am not a court of law, I get to set my own standards. He's a scumbag. I've never been a big fan of listening to scumbags talk.
Do you consider yourself to be in the category of "serial rapist"? Because that is how I would describe the allegations against Bill Cosby.
For the moment, let's assume that half of the women coming forward are lying, and half are telling the truth. I'll even give him the benefit of the doubt and round it in his favor. That means 17 women have lied, while he's raped or sexually assaulted the other 16 of them.
I'm not a big fan of people who have raped one person, let alone 16. So no, I'm not really interested in hearing him talk.
Would you consider yourself to be in a similar league with Mr. Cosby?
I'm no saint myself. I've done bad things at various points in my life. I know no one is perfect. I have no time for an unrepentant rapist though. Sorry if you find that disconcerting.
edit: to add, there are so many other funny people out there, other tv shows to watch, etc... I don't need to spend time watching him. I have other options available to me. I will spend my attention on people I don't think have done things I find morally reprehensible.
I have a similar issue revolving around gamergate. The CEO of a company I have previous bought things from said some things I found shocking. He was purposely using his standing as a CEO of a company to say things that I
Are you saying I'm not allowed to form opinions based on the information I have available to me?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what to say, really... Except "damages".
It would be a better world without ambulance chasers, frivolous lawsuits, legal opportunists and such people, but they do exist, and wherever they can get money is where they will be.
Many daggers find a falling camel's back. Of course, it is quite possible he did do those things, but if so, the courts will have to decide, not the general public.
Both get to decide, Sis. That's what voidier is there for.