There are multiple rape allegations against Bill Clinton. They are every bit as credible as the ones made against Cosby. Both men are probably rapists. Both men are probably high functioning sociopaths of the type that do well in show business, politics, and the corporate suite.
Clinton’s defenders were willing to overlook the rape allegations because they needed his political skills. His energy, charisma, intelligence, ability to manipulate people. People were/are willing to overlook Cosby’s abusive and unethical behavior because they needed his brilliance as an entertainer and a money maker.
You and Frylock are both jackasses. I am not “very likely a bad person,” “very likely a rapist,” nor am I “defending Cosby”. I am, as I said in the other thread, defending a particular idea of not accusing anyone without substantiation.
I don’t know if I’m talking about you or not. By “defending Cosby” I mean arguing that there is not enough information out there right now to be reasonably certain Cosby is a rapist.
Do you not think there is enough information out there right now to be reasonably certain Cosby is a rapist?
Did you read the thread? “Due process” is a legal term. We are not engaged in a legal proceeding.
There is very likely not the kind of evidence needed to convict Cosby of a crime, as far as I know. This does not make it any less clear that he’s a rapist.
If nothing else, this is a classic case of someone being convicted solely in the court of public opinion. I am not saying Cosby did not rape any of these women, but accusations, regardless of quantity, don’t automatically equate to guilt. Let the man be brought to court and then, if found guilty, let the appropriate justice be meted.
I am another who raised an eyebrow when Janice Dickinson accused Cosby of rape. Although even nutcases can be raped, it certainly seems, at least in Dickinson’s case, to be an example of someone jumping on the bandwagon.
I can think of many reasons, but here’s one possibility: Rape leaves physical evidence. Heck, consensual sex leaves evidence. Handjobs don’t. She may have felt falsely crying rape could have come back to haunt her, but wants to be on the gravy train for the potential eventual payout resulting from a suit. Perhaps she did give him a handjob, but wanted to do it, and now with all the hullaballoo senses an opportunity.
Sure there is. Money.
Of course it is possible that Cosby has done everything he is being accused of. However, until something more comes to light, other than more 'me too’s, I think the course of action now is to strongly convince Cosby to address the accusations.
Regardless of how this all shakes out, as others have said, his career, whatever he had left of it, is ruined. The question is was it deserved, and none of us, not even those most vociferously pillorying him, know the answer at this point. Certainly due diligence is recommended to all interested parties who want to get to the truth of the matter, but we are not there yet.
I can’t make heads or tails of this. Are we using different definitions of the word “evidence?” Every fact that can affect the probability of a statement’s being true would be, to my mind, evidence for or against that statement. That a person said a thing happened generally affects the probability that the thing did in fact happen (usually positively). How is the person saying the thing happened, then, not evidence?
Now you can tell me, I’m assuming, what it is about the context that negates the evidentiary value of the statement quoted above. I can too. And the stuff that effects that negation makes your example completely irrelevant to what we’re talking about.
So I am not sure whether Broderick’s rape accusation is true or not. But absolutely Clinton deserves to be excoriated for what he’s done to women that falls short of rape.
Seriously? “Bill Cosby is a rapist because X number of people said he was” is never ever going to be enough to convince any reasonable person that it is true. That people are treating it as a given fact just because someone said so is what you should be confused about.