I’ve not heard she refused to defend him. But it means nothing even if she did. And it certainly isn’t proof of his guilt.
Did I horribly misunderstand or have you actually claimed to teach critical thinking?
If so, I’d suggest you practice what you teach, as your comments in these threads show an abysmal lack of it.
" Imma teach you how to give a decent hand-job even if it costs me $ 15 thousand dollars !!! "
:dubious:
lolsy
Yeah, I thought that ‘practice what you teach’ line was pretty good myself. 
SA you repeatedly talk about the one woman who apparently took money from Cosby for grades (Therese Serignese) but what about the others who said that they didn’t ask for money and he offered it to them for their “education” like here or just threw money at them after sex?
Well, I think they may or may not be telling the whole story, or even the truth. The problem here on the board isn’t that I’m persuaded that Cosby is innocent; the problem is that I’m not persuaded he’s guilty. And part of the reason for that is so many of his accusers are lying or exaggerating or putting on a show that is completely unbelievable.
We have one woman claiming Cosby sexually assaulted her when all he did was kiss her.
We have another who claiming he assaulted her after she went into his hotel room bathroom and came out to find him in bed, naked under the covers. She could easily have left at that point, but instead walked over and got onto the bed with him, allowed him to put lotion on her hand, and then use it to masturbate himself with. Not only is it in my opinion unlikely that he’d voluntarily opt for a mere hand job when he has an extremely attractive young woman in bed with him, but the fact that she obviously walked over to him and got into bed under her own power and passively allowed him to do what she’s claiming he did does not equate to sexual assault in my opinion.
We have another woman who’s claiming assault after having told Cosby he shouldn’t have sex with her because of an STD and his wife would find out. This does not speak to me of any kind of objection that Cosby could have known about. It sounds like she’s agreeable to sex but concerned about passing an infection on to him. So he guides her to perform oral sex on him. She also admits she was high and not thinking clearly at the time.
Then we have a number of women who claim to have been drugged and woke up with their clothing askew and are merely assuming they got raped. But for all they know they didn’t get raped either. He may well have lost interest when they lost consciousness. Having admittedly not had sex as a woman I’m not sure what the morning after feels like but I would expect for at least a couple of reasons that a woman would be able to tell whether she’d had sex a few hours before.
And then we have Janice Dickinson and her pathetic, overwrought performance in which we’re expected to believe that this 27 or 28-year-old supermodel many years into her career was just a helpless and innocent young girl whose innocence was stolen by Cosby, the mere thought of which causes her to break down and sob invisible tears lo’ these thirty years later.
And now we have a woman claiming that Cosby raped her at the Playboy Mansion when she was 17 years old. It’s worth noting too that she only discovered the trauma this even caused within the last three years, which is conveniently the window an oddball California law allows for waiving the statute of limitations if only the alleged victim first discovers her trauma within the last three years. Does it really make sense that a woman raped at the age of 17 at the Playboy Mansion by a hugely famous and wealthy black guy would live the majority of her life unaffected by trauma from the even until, guess what, the last three years, which again just gets her under the wire for nice juicy lawsuit?
These are the kinds of things that make me doubt the veracity of the rest of Cosby’s accusers. The whole thing smacks of a money grab to me, whether it occurred 10 years ago in support of Constand’s lawsuit or whether it’s occurring now.
So while I’m still not convinced Cosby is innocent, I’m a long way from accepting his guilt in the face of so many provably false accusations, exaggerations and convenient sudden trauma discovery.
I also think the fact Gloria Allred has entered the picture will help Cosby because everyone knows what an unethical and opportunistic fame and money hound she is.
It was also in SNL back in 2004 or so. I can’t find the clip, but I remember seeing it on the Weekend Update sketch (probably in reruns). Here’s the transcript:
I’m pretty sure this is why this seemed like old news when it came out again.
This is an odd view of how journalism has been practiced for the last few decades. Can you provide any examples of reporters whose careers were killed because they reported something scandalous about any public figure, excluding reports that were patently false?
There’s no evidence, so far, any are lying, exaggerating, or “putting on a show”.
Groped, too, right? And groping someone, and grabbing them and kissing them without their consent, absolutely falls into the category of “sexual assault”. If I grabbed you and kissed you against your will, I just sexually assaulted you.
Your opinion on sexual assault has been shown to be misogynistic bunk.
How does it sound like she’s “agreeable”? She didn’t want to have sex, so she made up something to try to prevent it. He just chose a different orifice, against her will.
“Guides her”… you mean “forces her”, right? And whether she was high or not is immaterial – being high doesn’t mean rape is allowed, or consent doesn’t need to be acquired.
It doesn’t sound like you’ve read many of the accusations of the women and their statements about how they felt afterwards as to whether they had sex or not.
Rape can be traumatic, even years afterwards. Your use of the words “helpless and innocent” is just dinosaur misogyny – it doesn’t matter whether a woman is a virgin or not, or likes sex or not, rape is still rape. Her statements and emotional state are entirely consistent with a past rape, in my view.
She only “discovered the trauma” in the last three years? Are you a mind-reader? Where the fuck do you get this bullshit?
How the hell do you know she was unaffected by the trauma?
The vast majority of the accusers have shown no inclination to sue or get money in any way. You’ve chosen to ignore the many accusations that don’t fall into the patterns above – like Carla Ferrigno’s, Michelle Hurd, etc.
None of the accusations so far have been proven false – that’s total crap. And you have no way of knowing if any are exaggerations or “sudden trauma” discoveries.
I tend to think that you will twist every new development somehow into a way to excuse Cosby and assert the accusers are lying. Because old men with good reputations, in your mind, couldn’t have possibly ever done really bad things, it seems.
Interestingly enough, Janice Dickenson was the one I was least likely to believe because I feel she is a famewhore who will jump at any opportunity for fame. However, after reading about the Howard Stern interview I am inclined to believe her. She’s now been telling the same story for a decade and hasn’t tried to capitalize on it. Also, AFAICT Stern has a pretty good BS detector.
Anyway, even if you don’t believe these women were raped, you still think that Cosby had sex with dozens of women and that he used/condoned drug use and that therefore his entire carefully crafted persona is a lie and so regardless of any legal consequences it is perfectly reasonable for him to lose any career or social status he may have gained as a result of his lies. He is not being charged with any crimes but it seems to me it is perfectly acceptable to excoriate him in the court of public opinion.
Seriously. I don’t have to believe he’s a rapist to think he’s a creep and a user and a phony with no respect for women. All that seems abundantly clear and none of that is a crime so no one can argue that it hasn’t been proven in a court of law. So…fine. Creep, user, phony, with no respect for women. Still good enough reason to boycott him.
TLDR
i don’t know if it is the same personmentioned as being 17, but i’ve heard multiple reports from different news organizations where the person was 15. which mentioned that it could also be a criminal case.
I don’t know that it’s accurate to say he has no respect for them. To believe that, one would have to take his alleged victims at face value in their assertions as to how he treated them, and to overlook the several occasions when he rewarded them for good grades and/or paid for them to go to college or trade school.
Navy revoked his honorary Chief Petty Officer rank.
SA-please show me the
. There is one person who said that. That does not equate to several people. As for having no respect for women, I suggest that his treatment of his wife shows that.
Y’know what guys? The way Cosby’s having prior accolades, honours and positions withdrawn from him, or is forced to relinquish them, is getting all pending projects canned, reruns suspended, and is having to issue ticket refunds, and now he has been actually sued again … I believe the general public opinion has issued its finding. Sorry, pudding man, you’re screwed.
…And really, people say “OK so maybe it’s true we can’t judicially prove him a rapist but it’s pretty damn clear he’s a phony and a creep that women should steer clear of 'cause he just uses them” and it’s going to just cause the start a new line of argument seeking to disparage THAT?
Oh go on, then since you asked so nicely.
Your ‘quote’, above, (which isn’t a quote, making that whole paragraph somewhat…phony, and to my mind quite creepy) says this:
‘OK, so maybe we don’t know it to be true, but I want it to be true and that’s good enough for me. Besides, some people agree with me, so I can count them (and discount those who don’t).’
Turns out it’s quite easy to disparage, and doesn’t even require me to hold a position on rape or Cosby.
I’m kind of surprised by this. There’s not a business interest involved here that I know of.
There have been serious issues in the Services with sexual assault/harssment and their response or lack thereof. This sort of honorary promotion (he served as junior enlisted in the Navy) is not just to honor a veteran for his military and public services, but also to hold him/her up as an exemplary public “face” or spokesperson for “the values” of the Branch. Now, this would normally not be done just because someone’s standing as a public face or spokesperson has crashed for service-unrelated reasons, but specifically what it did involve creates a potential problem the Navy wanted to nip in the bud.
Ah that makes sense.
I can’t quite make sense of my reaction here, but somehow even though I think Cosby is pretty well confirmed as a rapist, somehow this one particular Cosby-dropping doesn’t feel as justified as all the others. I think maybe in my head, because the Navy is part of our governmental apparatus, something in me is feeling like there should be more of an actual trial-like procedure.
I know that doesn’t make real sense, I’m just talking out loud about why I should find myself approving less of this dropping than all of the others.