Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World


Off-Topic Discussions

2,851 to 2,900 of 3,118 << first < prev | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

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.

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

...

it seems I have been throwing stones whIle admiring my beautiful new glass walls! I was unclear before. To restate- you have every right to opine. However, this didn't sound like an opinion- you believe the witnesses against him, who have thus far offered nothing more than their word, are more than enough to convict. This, added with the idea that you aren't interested in anything he may say in his defense make it sound like you aren't even interested in a trial- you just want to see him kick in the air. You wouldn't be allowed to serve on a jury with that attitude.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

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.

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

...

You misunderstand.

I'm not interested in anything he has to say... as an entertainer.

If he has something relevant to offer up in his defense, I'm willing to hear it. It better be good though. For example, if all he has is personal attacks on each of these women, I'm not interested. I want to hear dates, times and alibis. To date, the best he's offered up is "I've never met that woman". That's not really much to go on and is so easy to say.

If I were on an actual jury, sure, I'd do everything I can do examine all the evidence.

I'm not on a jury though. I am not the government. Any "punishment" I chose to enforce will be miniscule and irrelevant to Mr. Cosby's life, therefore I think focusing on me and my actions as they pertain to this series of events is laughable as if I'm somehow guilty of something that actually matters.

Based on everything that's known to the public right now, Cosby is most likely a serial rapist. I'm sorry if that conclusion is offensive, but it's also the most realistic conclusion at this point.


Irontruth wrote:
Fergurg wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
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.

But you brought it up, so it clearly isn't a non-story. It has influenced your actions. I genuinely don't know whom you are referring to, so I can't determine how to assess the opinion that you have expressed.

Irontruth wrote:
I stand by my decision.
But you didn't stand by it. You declared it, and when asked about it, refused to explain it. That is not standing by your decision.


Judge it how you want. I have no interest in discussing it with you further. I'm under no obligation to discuss it, nor defend it.


How many boys were raped at Abu Ghraib?

And how big are Dick Cheney's speaker's fees?

Comin' again to save the motherf#~@in' da-ay!


Oh, what? My anti-killing children posts are being deleted now?


Musical interlude for the gobbo

I was on a road trip during the release of the CIA torture report and this came up randomly on our playlist while driving.


Irontruth wrote:

You misunderstand.

I'm not interested in anything he has to say... as an entertainer.

If he has something relevant to offer up in his defense, I'm willing to hear it. It better be good though. For example, if all he has is personal attacks on each of these women, I'm not interested. I want to hear dates, times and alibis. To date, the best he's offered up is "I've never met that woman". That's not really much to go on and is so easy to say.

If I were on an actual jury, sure, I'd do everything I can do examine all the evidence.

I'm not on a jury though. I am not the government. Any "punishment" I chose to enforce will be miniscule and irrelevant to Mr. Cosby's life, therefore I think focusing on me and my actions as they pertain to this series of events is laughable as if I'm somehow guilty of something that actually matters.

Based on everything that's known to the public right now, Cosby is most likely a serial rapist. I'm sorry if that conclusion is offensive, but it's also the most realistic conclusion at this point.

Let's just say this: "I never met that woman" is a pretty clear defense. It is also dangerous, because if the accuser can show that you did meet her in a situation where you should remember her, you were just caught lying. That he is willing to use that defense shows that he isn't really worried about that.

Silver Crusade Contributor

Fergurg wrote:
But you brought it up, so it clearly isn't a non-story. It has influenced your actions. I genuinely don't know whom you are referring to, so I can't determine how to assess the opinion that you have expressed.

I don't intend to discuss this either, but (despite your posting history suggesting otherwise) I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. It's likely that Irontruth is referring to Brad Wardell, CEO of Stardock, and some statements and accusations made via his Twitter. I'll say no more about it either. Like Irontruth, I'm under no obligation to do so. But if you're genuinely asking, now you know.

(And if I'm wrong, apologies to you and Irontruth. He's under no obligation to confirm or deny this, either, obviously.)


I'm sorry, I got it wrong. So far his defense has been to..

1) Say nothing
2) Settle out of court

So no, we haven't heard his side of the story. Watching the AP interview from early November, he seems to be employing the strategy of non-engagement and hoping it goes away.

That means the ONLY evidence we have right now is the claims of these 33 women. We have their word on this, including the fact that 13 of them were willing to testify in court as witnesses, even though they had no connection to the suit, nor would they gain from it monetarily.

There has literally been no evidence presented that would point towards his innocence.

I'm willing to hear his defense, but that means he has to put one forward.


Irontruth wrote:
Judge it how you want. I have no interest in discussing it with you further. I'm under no obligation to discuss it, nor defend it.

You brought it up. You were trying to prove a point, which is why you brought it up. Do you have a legal obligation to explain what you are talking about? No. But you do have a "not an a-hole" obligation to explain what you are talking about when someone specifically asks for an explanation about a subject you brought up.

Irontruth wrote:

I'm sorry, I got it wrong. So far his defense has been to..

1) Say nothing
2) Settle out of court

So no, we haven't heard his side of the story. Watching the AP interview from early November, he seems to be employing the strategy of non-engagement and hoping it goes away.

That means the ONLY evidence we have right now is the claims of these 33 women. We have their word on this, including the fact that 13 of them were willing to testify in court as witnesses, even though they had no connection to the suit, nor would they gain from it monetarily.

There has literally been no evidence presented that would point towards his innocence.

I'm willing to hear his defense, but that means he has to put one forward.

An accusation is not evidence, so we don't have any evidence at all; only assertions made.


thejeff wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
thejeff wrote:

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.

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?

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 someone who HAS been falsely accused, I would. But then again, I'm biased, as I have first-hand knowledge of how others believing a false accusation can ruin someone's life.


So, he has settled outside of court for probably very large amounts of money, not once but several times? I WONDER if that would attract other accusations. Nah, people couldn't be that opportunistic and dishonest, could they?

The simple truth is: Until a court decides, you have nothing, he has nothing, the women accusing him have nothing. Contributing to ruining someone's reputation with no basis is disgusting behaviour, even if all you do is smear crap on a messageboard about someone.


Quantity has a quality of its own.


Fergurg wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Judge it how you want. I have no interest in discussing it with you further. I'm under no obligation to discuss it, nor defend it.

You brought it up. You were trying to prove a point, which is why you brought it up. Do you have a legal obligation to explain what you are talking about? No. But you do have a "not an a-hole" obligation to explain what you are talking about when someone specifically asks for an explanation about a subject you brought up.

Irontruth wrote:

I'm sorry, I got it wrong. So far his defense has been to..

1) Say nothing
2) Settle out of court

So no, we haven't heard his side of the story. Watching the AP interview from early November, he seems to be employing the strategy of non-engagement and hoping it goes away.

That means the ONLY evidence we have right now is the claims of these 33 women. We have their word on this, including the fact that 13 of them were willing to testify in court as witnesses, even though they had no connection to the suit, nor would they gain from it monetarily.

There has literally been no evidence presented that would point towards his innocence.

I'm willing to hear his defense, but that means he has to put one forward.

An accusation is not evidence, so we don't have any evidence at all; only assertions made.

An accusation is very definitely evidence. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

On similar lines, his denial would also be evidence, if he'd made one. Again not proof, but evidence.

Unless you're only willing to consider testimony in court as evidence, which is just a semantics game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
An accusation is very definitely evidence. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

It really isn't...

At most, it's evidence that someone wants you to face trial. It's no evidence of an actual crime. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.


An accusation is no such thing as evidence. Let me break it down for you, thejeff.

"The dog ate the couch" is a STATEMENT.

"The couch is drenched in dog drool and there are no other dogs that could have done it" is some kind of EVIDENCE for the above statement.

You can't jump from one to the other. Trying to do so helps exactly nothing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:
An accusation is very definitely evidence. It's not proof, but it is evidence.

It really isn't...

At most, it's evidence that someone wants you to face trial. It's no evidence of an actual crime. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything.

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.

Statements are not evidence of a crime or an event. They are evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.

Statements are not evidence of a crime or an event. They are evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial.

That doesn't even make sense.

Would those same statements made in the trial be evidence?

Are you saying that only physical evidence is actual evidence?
Would corroborating statements by other witnesses be evidence?

Would, in this case, Bill Cosby saying "I never met that woman" be evidence? It's a statement, but it certainly isn't "evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial."

Are we just debating semantics or is there some larger issue here? Cause I'll stop if it's just semantics.


Sorry, replace "statement" with "accusation" in my last post. I changed my post midway and forgot to change that particular word.

Anyway, simply saying that something is true is no evidence of said something being true. It's evidence that you want others to believe something is true.

If an accusation is considered evidence, then a claim of innocence is just as valid as evidence, making the whole point moot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

Sorry, replace "statement" with "accusation" in my last post. I changed my post midway and forgot to change that particular word.

Anyway, simply saying that something is true is no evidence of said something being true. It's evidence that you want others to believe something is true.

If an accusation is considered evidence, then a claim of innocence is just as valid as evidence, making the whole point moot.

Of course a claim of innocence is also evidence. That's why you look at all the pieces of evidence you have and weigh them against each other.

Evidence is not proof. It's just evidence.
Even physical evidence isn't proof.


I know the difference between evidence and proof. But it seems we have different definitions of evidence, then...

Evidence is something that indicates that something is true.

Someone saying something is true doesn't do that.


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Oh, what? My anti-killing children posts are being deleted now?

I'm not sure what's going on with that, I've had several simply conversational posts vanish from this thread and one pseudo-offensive one left up. Not sure if they are being deleted or if it's just a glitch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

I know the difference between evidence and proof. But it seems we have different definitions of evidence, then...

Evidence is something that indicates that something is true.

Someone saying something is true doesn't do that.

And yet, in both real life and the legal system, we treat it as if it does.

Witness statements, including the alleged victim and the defendant's testimony are treated as evidence. Weighing the credibility of such testimony is an important part of a jury's job, along with deciding how well the testimony fits with the physical evidence.

We also accept people's statements as indicating something to be true all the time in normal life. Do you really think that what people say doesn't even indicate truth? That there is no truth value whatsoever in people's statements?
Obviously people can lie or be mistaken and their statements can be contradicted by other more direct evidence, but they still can provide an indication of the truth. If you were working in an interior office and someone came in and told you it was starting to rain, you would just ignore it and leave your car windows open, because his statement wasn't even an indication? You wouldn't at least check? Assuming the person wasn't known as a practical joker or compulsive liar or some such.


Lemmy wrote:
thejeff wrote:

It's not proof. It may not even be good evidence. People can in fact lie. It still remains evidence. It should of course be weighed against any contradictory evidence.

Testimony is evidence. Witness testimony, the statements of the accuser and the accused they are all evidence. Along with any physical evidence. Evidence is not just physical evidence, whether we're speaking in strictly legal terms or in more common everyday ones.

Statements are not evidence of a crime or an event. They are evidence that someone wants the authorities to put you on trial.

And just jumping back to this for a second: The vast majority of those accusations will not lead to trial due to the statute of limitations. Even for civil suits.

It's possible that the accusers are going public without realizing this or that they somehow want the authorities to put him on trial anyway, but if they've talked to a lawyer, they should know that's not going to happen.


Irontruth wrote:

Musical interlude for the gobbo

I was on a road trip during the release of the CIA torture report and this came up randomly on our playlist while driving.

Didn't he used to beat Darryl Hannah?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We accept people's words because we don't have the time and/or resources to check everything. Or because we believe those people are trustworthy.

But when judging someone, a simple accusation is not evidence. It doesn't indicates anything to be true.

It might be considered evidence by the court, but at that point we are discussing semantics. It doesn't change the fact that a simple statement doesn't really indicate anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:

We accept people's words because we don't have the time and/or resources to check everything. Or because we believe those people are trustworthy.

But when judging someone, a simple accusation is not evidence. It doesn't indicates anything to be true.

It might be considered evidence by the court, but at that point we are discussing semantics. It doesn't change the fact that a simple statement doesn't really indicate anything.

OK. we have to be purely in semantics territory at this point.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Pretty odd ones if a statement itself is evidence, to be honest. The evidence for what witnesses say (the evidence for their statements) lies in the trustworthiness of their descriptions and so on. Taking their statements by themselves is no evidence of anything. By the way, thejeff, I happen to need to move a large sum of money internationally, and if you would just help me pay the fees for doing so, I would give you 10% of the total sum. :-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
Pretty odd ones if a statement itself is evidence, to be honest. The evidence for what witnesses say (the evidence for their statements) lies in the trustworthiness of their descriptions and so on. Taking their statements by themselves is no evidence of anything. By the way, thejeff, I happen to need to move a large sum of money internationally, and if you would just help me pay the fees for doing so, I would give you 10% of the total sum. :-)

I never said it was good evidence.

The credibility of the witnesses is evidence of the truth of their statements. The statements themselves remain evidence. If all you had was a witness who was completely trustworthy, but didn't actually make a statement about the case, there would still be no evidence.

If a total stranger walked up to me in my inside office and told me it was starting to rain, I'd consider that at least evidence enough to go check to see if I needed to close my car windows. Without that evidence, I'd have no reason to even look.
Now if it was someone I trusted or if he was soaked or carrying a wet umbrella, it would be stronger evidence.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quantity has a quality of its own.

Wasn't there a certain city in Massachusetts that went with that theory? Back around the late 1600s?


Nuh uh. Statement != evidence. No matter what.

If someone tells you it's raining outside, it is still their credibility in your eyes that determines if you assign any form of weight to that statement.


Sissyl wrote:

Nuh uh. Statement != evidence. No matter what.

If someone tells you it's raining outside, it is still their credibility in your eyes that determines if you assign any form of weight to that statement.

And there's no default credibility at all? I just don't understand this line of argument.

Going back to the actual case: 30+ women accusing Bill Cosby of rape is no evidence at all? It doesn't raise the slightest bit of doubt, that you wouldn't have had if the accusations weren't made?

I'm not talking about weighing those statements against his statement and concluding they're wrong. Or weighing them against your impression of his character and concluding they're wrong. Or even comparing with the racist accusations of rape against black men and dismissing them on those grounds. Or considering the possibility of a profit motive too high to take them seriously.
All of those I would consider weighing evidence against other evidence to reach a conclusion. Some more justifiably than others.

You don't know those women, so I assume you don't have personal reasons to distrust them. I doubt you've studied all their statements in enough depth to conclude on an individual basis that each accusation is internally inconsistent or otherwise flawed.
Is it just that, absent some specific reason to trust someone, you give them no credibility at all?

Mind you, I'm not saying that's sufficient evidence for a conviction, even if the statute of limitations didn't apply.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

So while I get that y'all like arguing about semantics, it seems like it's essentially distracting from the point of whether Bill Cosby is a serial rapist.

So here are my questions. Do you think that Bill Cosby is not a serial rapist, because it's his word against 33 rape accusations, and all this talk of "credibility" essentially means you don't think 33 separate accusations of rape are credible compared to Bill Cosby's word? Do believe that Bill Cosby raped some number of women between 1 and 33 and you're just arguing about what constitutes "evidence" for yucks? Is it something else?


I attach no credibility AT ALL to the statements themselves. They are merely declarations of some kind of intent. Now, if there is more than "he raped me", anything you could use to determine what happened, that is evidence. The statements remain without value as evidence.

What this means is you can't use the accusations themselves as evidence of anything whatsoever. If the accusations are more substantial, such as detailed and verifiable, that is another thing.


Freehold DM wrote:
I think you might be confusing Leno for Letterman.

You are probably right.

Now, I would like to say on the other end of the equation, I HAVE seen a case like this before. My normal fields applied to contract and administrative law which are very different than this, but occasionally things happen.

There was a lady who claimed that several years previous she had gone on a date with a guy. During the date, she thought he had slipped something into her drink. She couldn't remember much about it later, but she did realize he had taken her to his apartment and there done some pretty seriously bad things.

Obviously I won't go into names or specifics (first as I'm not allowed to, and second, because I wouldn't even if I were allowed to as it's a personal and sensitive subject for the person) The problem with that case, is that beyond the lady's word, there was no evidence that we could use against the guy. If we brought a case, we would lose due to lack of evidence. I didn't doubt her word at all...and wish there was more that could be done.

All in all, it was very sad. When things like this happen, that's why people need to go and report it immediately, but many times they are in shock, or afraid of other items (such as personal repercussions, embarrassment, etc).

However, if I had 33 witnesses...that would be a VERY different story. I'd only need ONE authentic case, because with 33 witnesses, I would have a LOT more to work with.

Now, some of these were traveling around with Cosby supposedly, and hence it doesn't matter what the SoL are in California. If they travelled enough, I imagine sooner or later there should be a state without a SoL on Rape.

A quick look seems to indicate if any of these situations while they were travelling with ANY of these women happened in...

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Delaware
Idaho
Kentucky
Maryland
Mississippi
Missouri
North Carolina
South Carolina
Utah
Tennesse
Virginia
West Virginia or
Wyoming...

We instantly have a case...

Additionally we can add

Depending on how it is charged in certain situations (and we probably could apply it if what these ladies say are correct)...

Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Nebraska
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Oklahoma
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Vermont or
Wisconsin.

All told, as they travelled if they hit any of 29 states, or over 50% of the Union, if they went to any of these states while travelling, they should have a legal case they should be able to push. There is NO reason with that many witnesses they shouldn't be able to attempt something. There ONLY NEEDS to be ONE out of what appears to be in the hundreds (several women stated that it occurred multiple times).

It may be that they are actually getting a case together now (such things DO take time, I'd guess it could be up to a year from the start of the information to when a formal charge comes up...or other various time tables) and we don't see it.

However, it may be that Cosby was amazingly adroit and far sighted in regards to the laws in regards to this, and hence chose which states to do things in and which not with the almost prophetic view that no one would ever come up against him with charges on it within the SoL of the states hew as in (I'd say that was very unlikely).

There are many questionable things about this, and currently smells more like a political smear campaign against an African American male than reality, BUT, I DON'T KNOW. It could be real and authentic cases. If they are REAL, with the preponderance of what should be at least a reachable legal goal, there should be a lawsuit of some sort eventually in regards to this.

If the women were assaulted and/or violently assaulted, I hope they get the justice that is deserved upon the perpetrator.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

I attach no credibility AT ALL to the statements themselves. They are merely declarations of some kind of intent. Now, if there is more than "he raped me", anything you could use to determine what happened, that is evidence. The statements remain without value as evidence.

What this means is you can't use the accusations themselves as evidence of anything whatsoever. If the accusations are more substantial, such as detailed and verifiable, that is another thing.

Okay but

are you saying they're lying or not?


Sissyl wrote:

I attach no credibility AT ALL to the statements themselves. They are merely declarations of some kind of intent. Now, if there is more than "he raped me", anything you could use to determine what happened, that is evidence. The statements remain without value as evidence.

What this means is you can't use the accusations themselves as evidence of anything whatsoever. If the accusations are more substantial, such as detailed and verifiable, that is another thing.

Are you saying that "Bill Cosby raped me" is not evidence, but this is

Description of sexual assault/rape:
"It was in a hotel in Reno, claims Bowman, that Cosby assaulted her one night in 1986. 'He took my hand and his hand over it, and he masturbated with his hand over my hand,' says Bowman, who, although terrified, kept quiet about the incident and continued as Cosby's protégé because, she says, 'Who's gonna believe this? He was a powerful man. He was like the president.' Before long she was alone with Cosby again in his Manhattan townhouse; she was given a glass of red wine, and "the next thing I know, I'm sick and I'm nauseous and I'm delusional and I'm limp and ... I can't think straight.... And I just came to, and I'm wearing a [men's] T-shirt that wasn't mine, and he was in a white robe.'"

Because that's not at all the distinction I thought you (or Lemmy) were making.
For the record, yes, there is much more detail in many if not all of the accusations. Not all public at this point, but some it is. I've just been mentioning "33 women accused him of rape" as a shorthand, instead of describing each of the accusations in detail.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


However, if I had 33 witnesses...that would be a VERY different story. I'd only need ONE authentic case, because with 33 witnesses, I would have a LOT more to work with.

You'd still need one authentic case. 33 chances makes that more likely, but you're still going to need to prove that one case independent of the 32 others. At least one will need physical evidence or other witnesses or something to actually win. That one will of course have to have occurred somewhere the statute of limitations hasn't expired. And you're going to have to win against a very high priced legal team.


Well, I'd say it's detailed enough to compare to other cases, perhaps to check modus operandi or the like, but there is very little beyond "hotel in Reno" and "Manhattan townhouse" that is going to be verifiable. If they do have stories attached to the accusations, I am sure the courts will be able to figure something out.

No, I am not saying they are lying. I am saying the accusations mean nothing in and of themselves, and things like

Irontruth wrote:

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.

are downright sad. What Irontruth is saying here is that the number of accusations by itself is evidence of something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:

Well, I'd say it's detailed enough to compare to other cases, perhaps to check modus operandi or the like, but there is very little beyond "hotel in Reno" and "Manhattan townhouse" that is going to be verifiable. If they do have stories attached to the accusations, I am sure the courts will be able to figure something out.

No, I am not saying they are lying. I am saying the accusations mean nothing in and of themselves, and things like

Irontruth wrote:

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.
are downright sad. What Irontruth is saying here is that the number of accusations by itself is evidence of something.

So you're still saying that the statements themselves are not evidence, but they could provide information that could theoretically be turned into evidence? Contrary to what you said before, that has nothing to do with the credibility of the witnesses.

So, you're not saying they're lying, but you also completely dismiss what they say happened.

Again, I'm not claiming the stories themselves provide sufficient evidence for a conviction, but the simple fact that so many women have come forward does raise my suspicions about Cosby far above where they would be if no accusations had been made.


I dismiss the idea of counting the number of accusations and thereby condemning him. The accusations themselves ("he raped me") are without value as evidence, but the rest they have said may well include information that is valid as evidence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
I dismiss the idea of counting the number of accusations and thereby condemning him. The accusations themselves ("he raped me") are without value as evidence, but the rest they have said may well include information that is valid as evidence.

And we're back to either dismissing them (but not saying they're lying) or semantic games about evidence.

If you mean "condemn" in the legal sense, then no one is saying that. If you mean "condemn" by thinking he's likely a rapist, then I don't need to hold to legal standards to do so.


No, but unless you have more than the number of accusations to go on, and you smear him for it, that's disgusting.

You're the one playing semantic games, thejeff. You are the one saying, basically, "where there's smoke, there's fire", trying to justify this by claiming statements themselves have evidence value.


Sissyl wrote:

No, but unless you have more than the number of accusations to go on, and you smear him for it, that's disgusting.

You're the one playing semantic games, thejeff. You are the one saying, basically, "where there's smoke, there's fire", trying to justify this by claiming statements themselves have evidence value.

I still fundamentally don't understand what you mean by saying they don't.


Aaaannnnnddddd, we're back to where we were 8 hours ago...

Testimony:

EDIT: In the law, testimony is a form of evidence that is obtained from a witness who makes a solemn statement or declaration of fact. Testimony may be oral or written, and it is usually made by oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury


thejeff wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:


However, if I had 33 witnesses...that would be a VERY different story. I'd only need ONE authentic case, because with 33 witnesses, I would have a LOT more to work with.

You'd still need one authentic case. 33 chances makes that more likely, but you're still going to need to prove that one case independent of the 32 others. At least one will need physical evidence or other witnesses or something to actually win. That one will of course have to have occurred somewhere the statute of limitations hasn't expired. And you're going to have to win against a very high priced legal team.

That's not going to be hard at all to tell the truth. If their stories hold any water, the fact that he was highly visible is going to make it VERY easy to find witnesses to corroborate where he and she was, and the situation.

The other women are there in regards to be evidence that he did this regularly and this is no different...aka...sort of like character witnesses, but stronger.

There doesn't necessarily have to be any actual PHYSICAL evidence (aka, DNA samples, hair, pieces of clothing) in these types of cases from what I know, but a preponderance of evidence (aka...for example, the Boston marathon bombings...you have dozens of witnesses corroborating where the brothers were and what they had on them connecting them to the packages) to bring it to case. These cases are hard already, and most of the time it depends highly on he said/she said. If you have corroboration of a story and 32 other witnesses stating their experiences of a similar thing...that is pudding on the cake.

NY is a state where it could possibly go on trial. As I said, it could be they are putting together something right now (these things could take time)...these stories would also have a LOT more weight if a case is created.


thejeff wrote:
Sissyl wrote:

No, but unless you have more than the number of accusations to go on, and you smear him for it, that's disgusting.

You're the one playing semantic games, thejeff. You are the one saying, basically, "where there's smoke, there's fire", trying to justify this by claiming statements themselves have evidence value.

I still fundamentally don't understand what you mean by saying they don't.

At this point: No, I am beginning to understand you do not. I can't really be clearer, so I will just stop this, thejeff.

2,851 to 2,900 of 3,118 << first < prev | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Gender / Sex Politics in the Real World All Messageboards