Look, this is a world where a creepy monster like Cosby pretends he is Cliff Huxtable and makes hundreds of millions while ruffying and raping his way across the decades like some creature that would disgust a vampire. It is a world where the Raoul Wallenbergs are arrested by their allies and never heard from again. War profiteer warmongering cowards like Dick Cheney get rich and get heart transplants that would save young fathers. This is a world where abuse of power and goodness are punished if at all noticed.
Goodness and what is ordinarily thought of as godliness and righteousness have no material reward and are their own reward.
A lot of people in this thread have stood on the legal principle of the presumption of innocence. Prior to Cosby’s case, I did that. There is just so much evidence (back when it was only about 10 women) and he was so far beyond the reach of the law and his lawyer was threatening them with suit and he’s such a creep, that I abandoned that. Cosby needs denouncing. In the only court he will face, that of public opinion, he is contemptible.
That would be relevant if the stories matched. The general M.O. is the same, but everyone has different details. If it was all copycatting, I think the stories would be even more similar to each other. You’re not going to make up a detail like when you came to, he was sucking your toes if no one else had said it already.
It’s amazing how people will leap to torturous semantic conclusions in order to support their beliefs.
What “I don’t know” means is that none of us know for a fact whether Cosby is guilty.
Thus the only way to get it ‘correct’ would be to acknowledge that.
Factual knowledge is the determinant element. Odds, percentages, likelihood, etc., have absolutely nothing to do with it.
Of course even sven’s thought experiment was intended to be a guessing game. But then she threw getting it ‘correct’ into the mix, and the only true way to get it correct, as opposed to making a lucky guess, is to acknowledge that we don’t truly know the answer.
There are fairly few things that you “know for a fact”, but if you need to do something based on the outcome you play the odds. You don’t don’t “know for a fact” whether it will rain today, but if you’re deciding whether to plan for a picnic or take an umbrella when you go out you’ll decide what to do based on your best guess.
even sven’s point was to postulate a situation where you similarly had to make a decision based on the Cosby allegations, such that you would similarly need to play the odds. There’s no straightforward reason for avoiding the question.
So if “I don’t know” is an automatic loss of the game by rule, as are variations, and if you don’t answer either “yes, at least some of the accusers are telling the truth and were drugged and/or raped by Cosby” or “no, none of the accusers were drugged and/or raped by Cosby” you will be shot, which answer would you choose?
My comment about her sex appeal wasn’t made in the midst of her making an argument. It was to counter several totally gratuitous insults she’d thrown my way when I’d said nothing at all to her.
(I’ll leave the argument as to whether such a comment is misogynistic for another time, but for now I’ll just say I disagree.)
“None of us know for a fact” is usually used in contexts where something is fairly certain but not completely certain. Are you intentionally communicating that we can be fairly certain, albeit not completely certain, that Cosby is guilty?
If not, then where would you put the appropriate confidence level? If you had to place odds on Cosby turning out to be rapist, what would those odds be?
I understood her point. But then she threw in reward or punishment for getting it correct, and to me the only true way to get it correct is to acknowledge that we don’t know.
Further, I don’t see much point in asking people to guess. A guess is just a guess after all, and getting it right or wrong proves nothing.
Well, the very fact that there have been allegations increases the chances that he is a rapist.
Average guy on the street: greater than 0 and less than 50% (doesn’t mean he’s not, though)
Bill Cosby: Greater than 50 % and less than 1. (but doesn’t mean he is)
If God asked, I would roll for the Ferrari.
If I were on a jury, I would still weigh all the evidence before coming to a decision.
No, I’m intentionally communicating that some people are fairly certain of Cosby’s guilt but they don’t know it for a fact, and therefore they should stop acting as if his guilt were a foregone conclusion.
And also that they (which includes you) therefore should stop casting aspersions upon those who remain unconvinced.
We have no way of knowing that we don’t live in a matrix-like simulation. We have no way of knowing that the scientists aren’t all lying to us about dinosaurs. Solipsism is a fun game for stoned undergrads, but otherwise isn’t an argument.
This is not a hard question. If you had to answer “probably did it” or “probably didn’t do it”-- and the answer would be compared to what really happened-- which would you choose? Which do you suspect best reflects reality?
Go ahead and keep trying to weasel out of an answer if you like, but that’s a pretty ball-less thing to do.
I think, from reading this and other similar threads, that these stories do serve as a sort of Rorschach test of our decision-making and judgment. Those who claim there is no evidence or insufficient evidence are almost certainly capable of finding other stories compelling and believing them with worse evidence. Those who claim the evidence is utterly compelling are almost certainly capable of disbelieving other stories with better evidence. Our predispositions impact how we weigh the evidence we are faced with. The same voices tend to show up on the same sides because we all have these predispositions.
For me? Yes, I tend to believe accusers rather than the accused in rape cases. Yes, I feel that reveals something about me. Yes, I feel that thinking the other way reveals something about the other side.
Isn’t it like the satanic abuse cases or the UVA case? There is no shortage of true believers, and the more lurid and horrendous and outlandishly titillating, the more people jump right on. It’s usually based on a heaping helping of popularized and institutionalized misandry.
Yes, there is. The reason for not answering that question is that there’s no good reason for answering it. Playing exactly by the hypothetical doesn’t really reflect anything more than a gotcha game.
I just read an article that I mostly agree with on this subject. The title is Rape and the Rush to Pass Judgment and the soundbite line reads:
The author goes on to say that people in the helping professions like doctors, therapists and people who work with trauma victims should automatically take the side of the accuser. The people in the investigative professions should look critically but fairly at the information presented and people like lawyers should take the side of the accused.
But in our capacity as citizens, how should “we” decide?
That’s where the general and the specific are different. In general, it’s important to increase our understanding about rape so that more victims can be helped in the wider picture. In the specific cases, there’s more downside than upside to deciding.