Thank you, andros. It takes a special snowflake these days, to fight ignorance rather than promote it.
That’s not how defamation law works in the United States. Particularly because Cosby is a public figure, the burden is on him to prove that the accusers have:
- Made a statement of fact
- To a third party
- That is not true
- That tends to harm his reputation
- That was made with actual malice or with a reckless disregard for the truth (with negligence if he had not been a public figure)
Somebody should introduce Jack to Dale. I bet they get along famously.
Considering how many of the accusers are successful professionals, and considering that Cosby has admitted in court to providing pills to young women he wanted to have sex with, it seems far more likely that some of these accusations are accurate then that all of them are false.
Without any evidence that any of the accusers are lying, I’m certainly not ready to say that they are lying, much less hurl misogynistic insults at them.
By the way – the way you use “whore” and “virgin” is strange to me. Do you believe that chastity/virginity is more moral and admirable then promiscuity? Do you believe women who choose to be promiscuous deserve to be insulted?
Let’s not.
Oh, thank god. For a moment there I thought . . .
. . . Erm. No. No they aren’t.
Well, clearly not. (The survival of our species is kind of dependent on that.)
But I’m not sure it has to be a dichotomy.
Please don’t wink at me. It’s skeeving me out.
Also, I don’t think you have the slightest notion of what may or may not be a slur on women.
Oh god no.
You’re making math skeevy now!
Really!? Now you’re going to insult schizophrenic people, too?
Holy fuck!
I don’t believe you have a fucking clue what misogyny is.
For god’s sake, take a moment to check yourself.
And until then, shut . . . the fuck . . . up!
It’s really not. He is only suing the 7 women who sued him, for defamation. It’s a counter-suit.
And yet that appears, to laypeople who do not grok the nuances of defamation suits, as though those are the only accusers he has a chance of opposing, and them only on a “technicality.” To the casual couchsitter, it very much does look like he doesn’t have any ammo against the other accusers. At this point.
Again, no shit, but this is not just about legalities, this is about the court of public perception, and about damage control for the Coz’ public image. It’s a desperate rearguard action, and they’re willing to accept that perception in exchange for the possible gains a possibly legal victory might provide.
I don’t hold with your contention that ‘succesful professionals’ are strangers to deceit of any kind, let alone self-deception, nor do I accept that Cosby paying drug-whores with drugs make him a rapist.
So that makes two of us not hurling misogynistic insults. I wonder why you brought them up?
Nope, neither. Nor am I a Freudian, but it was Freud who posited a ‘virgin-whore complex’, which was (perhaps still is) referenced a lot in the feminism I grew up with. It’s about as meaningful as if I’d referenced ‘out of the strong, something sweet’ - not being a bible-basher either, you see, just stuffed full of all manner of cultural references that slip out from time to time. You know it’s the Pit, you can just insult me because you hate me, you don’t have to force an improbable rationale for it?
Why ever not?
You were wrong.
But some of them are - as are some men.
It’s not a monochote either which was rather my point.
Man up 
Well I think I do, and since you’ve expanded on your implication, I’m sticking with my thought and you’re welcome to yours (though I am fairly sure that describing some women is not a slur on women),
Uhuh. Maths, and facts, and whatnot, are far too pure to get involved in a discussion of a man’s guilt or innocence.
You see an insult in a statistic? Quite literally, ‘some of my best friends are’ schizophrenic - deeply talented visual artists, all three of them, though conversations with them can take interesting turns…
I’m certainly not sure what definition you’re using.
Leaving ‘god’ out of it, I shan’t be shutting up either way. I checked myself, by the way - confirming that I’m not you and don’t want to be. You should probably look into some solution - temporary if necessary, but with an eye to finality - for the problem of people who aren’t like you.
Smarmy prick.
You’ve seen Bill Cosbys prick?
Yes you did, liar.
Well, I’ve seen the foreskin that covers his knob.
It posts here under the name “Jack of Words”.
You are one lucky lady. Were you also desirious of fisticuffs after seeing his Glorious Knob?
Finally. But I wonder if there is any evidence beyond she said he said. Also the lawsuit was settled so what new evidence do they have to recharge him?
The outcome of the lawsuit is irrelevant to the criminal case. But apparently the allegations made in the suit are more serious than her original police report.
Glorious Knob sounds like some state park in Utah.
They now have his deposition. In it he admits to getting drugs to give to women in order to have sex. He admits to one case of giving that drug to a woman and then having sex with her. That woman said she was not capable of consenting. When asked about that, Cosby said he didn’t know if that was true. And when asked if he gave these drugs to the women without their knowledge (the very heart of the case), Cosby’s lawyer objected and the question was not answered.
They also have a lot more other victims. And from the news stories I’ve read, Pennsylvania allows testimony that establishes a pattern even when there was no crime charged in the other cases. (Of course, Cosby’s lawyers will be trying very hard to get the pattern testimony excluded.) If their testimony is allowed, this won’t be a he said-she said. It will be a he said-she said-she said-she said-she said, etc.
Ah, thank you. I missed the part where the first case was a civil one.
I’d camp there.
If the other women testify this will most likely be his undoing.