The lesson you’ve learned here is that when you disagree with me and take levdrakon’s side, you get lumped into agreeing with levdrakon. Levdrakon is one of the biggest idiots ever to grace the SDMB, so you’re on the fast track.
It’s out of the question. Claiming a man with full time lawyers who threatens defamation suits drugged and raped you is not consequence free. He can sue any combination of them for defamation. He has threatened to. The argument you make, that every one of these now two dozen women is a false accuser speaks a great deal about your character and views on women and rape. It does not speak well.
If there was really an incentive for multiple women to accuse a man of drugging and/or raping, either in coordination or ab initio, I think we would have seen it throughout history.
Bill Cosby ain’t Cliff Huxtable, lovable doctor. He’s Bill Cosby, who gets his kicks drugging and raping women. He is to be denounced and shunned. Not defended with fabricated nonsense about two dozen women lying.
I see your grasp of sarcasm is well up there with your grasp of logic.
The lesson I’ve learned here is that you bark at the moon and flail wildly at anyone who disagrees with you - a valuable lesson to learn this early in my stay here, admittedly. When it comes to idiocy, I certainly don’t intend to quarrel with an expert.
Flail, flail, flail. The only argument I’ve been making is to agree that there is a perfectly plausible means by which these women, if some or all of them are lying, could indeed turn in matching stories. But now you’re upping the ante still further and shrieking that I must be a misogynist and a rape-enabler.
And again, when the evidence is actually presented in court and a verdict is reached, I’ll denounce and shun all you like. Not before. Because until then there’s only allegations that he gets his kicks drugging and raping women, and if you’d wipe the spittle from your lips for a moment you might begin to understand this.
If, as the number of women accusing Cosby of rape rises, the probability that they’re telling the truth tends to increase… what does that speak of the number of people who think you’re a gibbering loon?
I created a thought experiment to somewhat mirror the Bill Cosby case where people report rapes and get them published like in the Bill Cosby case. You mentioned that the media model works well. But it doesn’t work all that well if the rapist is someone’s unknown neighbor. The media wouldn’t pick up a story of a 30 year old rape by some unknown person’s neighbor. In that way, it doesn’t work for the average person. Justice (or at least accusations) would again be skewed towards the popular and newsworthy people. It still wouldn’t give the average person the same recourse as those accusing famous people.
Would you want it to work that way for the average person?
Yes, “somewhat.” What I said in response wasn’t that the mechanics of the Cosby case don’t generalize, rather, I said that your examples didn’t capture enough of the mechanics of the Cosby case. This means that your summary (which I asked for a citation about) was completely wrong–it seems you failed to even understand what was happening in the conversation, that is, assuming you were actually taking the topic seriously.
This seems to be a topic switch within your post, and I can follow along. What you’ve been proposing in this and your previous post, if it’s relevant to anything anyone here cares about, is that conversations people have as a result of the Cosby case are not likely, in many cases, to motivate people to clarify and articulate their own views on rape reporting in general, and are not likely, in many cases, to either effect a change of mind or effect a shaping of a person’s view as they come to form one for the first time. My response to this is, I have to admit, incredulity. The claim seems extraordinary.
But if that’s not your claim then I am having a lot of trouble seeing how your comments are relevant. No one in this thread prior to you has suggested that anyone thinks it is good for celebs to be treated differently than non-celebs w.r.t. rape accusation. If that’s what you’re preaching, you’re preaching not to a choir exactly, but to an empty room while the choir is singing somewhere else.
I just asked the question of you personally because I thought it might be easier. But the reason that I don’t think people want the system to work that way for the average person is because it doesn’t, and no one is advocating it. In fact, it was meant to be a silly thought experiment to show that this case only works for this one case or for people in the media.
As for capturing enough of the mechanics of the system, you seem to be entrusting the media for doing a lot of the investigative work. I disagree that the investigative branch of that system is adequate for the task. That’s shown clearly in the UVA case. The investigative piece might have been shown later in the process, but by then, a lot of damage had already been done.
Do you think people want the system to work the same way for the average person?
It may bring out people’s opinions on rape reporting in general. But since those views don’t reflect what would happen with the average person, it’s not indicative of anything. The average person can’t accuse someone successfully of drugging and raping them on a 30 year old claim so people’s views on that aren’t very illuminating.
But that wasn’t the point in my posts. My point was that the Bill Cosby case doesn’t effect a wider change in the system so speaking about it as though it’s about justice or has relevance to anything else isn’t useful. It’s just a media scandal.
I believe I was careful to describe what I predicted would happen under your scenario, and I gave alterations to your scenario and made predictions as to what would happen in the altered scenario. At no point did I say anything that would imply that anyone should be “trusted.” I talked about what people would believe under different circumstances, not what they should believe.
This is a red herring, since no one has proposed a system like the one you describe.
I don’t know what you mean here. Average people face the very same kinds of problems in reporting rape that we can see in posts here which automatically defend Cosby and make accusations against his accusers. Do you disagree?
20 average people accuse one average person of rape, all of them describing the same mode of operation, most of them independent, almost none with anything to gain… I am not sure what meaningful distinction you’re trying to draw here. It seems clear that many of the things people say about the Cosby case they would also apply to the “average person” case. Why do you think otherwise?
Yes, I understand that you think the Cosby case is “just a media scandal,” but the concept of “just a media scandal” is incoherent. There’s no such thing. A thing can’t be a scandal at all unless when people think about it they think about issues they consider to be serious and to matter to their everyday lives.
The number of people who think I am a gibbering loon has nothing to do with Bill Cosby being a rapist, with Pinochet being a mass murderer and torturer or anything else. They are not tied to each other. Bill Cosby can be a serial rapist and I can be a gibbering loon, they are not overlapping in any respect.
Bill Cosby would be entitled to a presumption of innocence in a criminal prosecution. He is not entitled to any such thing socially.
I’ll ask again. God comes down and asks you what you think happened with Coaby. He offers you a Ferrari if you get it right. If you get it wrong, he’ll give you a couple of kidney stones.
Perhaps we’re stumbling on a semantic point here. Of course I know what I think - does God give me the Ferrari for knowing what I think? Do I even have a choice what to think? Or does the question actually mean “What, in your considered judgement, happened?” such that I can reasonably answer “I do not believe I am informed enough to make a judgement”?
Fine, you’re not. But in the hypothetical, you have to take a guess anyway. And your only option is to play the odds. What do you do then?
Do you really think it’s just as likely that the whole thing is not true than that it is? Or do you think there’s a 50%+ likelihood that there’s some truth to the allegations.
It should be noted that “I don’t know” is basically equivalent to saying “the chances are fifty fifty.”
That’s saying, in other words, that in your estimation Cosby is just as likely to be a rapist as not.
When you put it that way, that’s pretty serious isn’t it? For the average guy off the street you’d probably say the chances are he’s not a rapist. But it would seem for Cosby you think the chances are substantially greater than average that he’s a rapist. That’s interesting.
Or is “I don’t know” not the right answer after all?
Based on what you’ve written, I’d say God is a douchebag who should spend more time helping people and less time making wagers like some Las Vegas bookie.