No, your assertions were inane. There was nothing implausible at all. No excuses were needed. Pointing out inanity is not excuses.
None of what you posted actually constituted a reasonable reason.
My MO is to point out inanity. Your MO is to dig and dig to try and find any minutiae in a victim’s story, no matter how stupid and inane, that might be portrayed as less than honest. You usually fail in this, and your failure is never acknowledged by you.
ButbutbutMISANDRY!
People maybe drink coffee and get woozy “all the time,” but how do you explain so many women getting woozy and passing out while in his company, no matter what kind of drink was ingested? Again, we’re talking about a pattern here, which you refuse to acknowledge.
They do? (I never heard of such a thing.)
Starving Artist suggested it; you might ask him.
I can’t curse unless I have 8 hours of Rest, just stepped out of the shower where I used Zest, and have a minty fresh mouth from Crest.
Even then, I can only call someone a demmed scoundrel!
Dang I misquoted it and of course I can’t go back and edit. I should have had “sometimes” in the quotes. Which…sure, I’ll bet sometimes there is a temporal association with drinking coffee and getting woozy. I’m sure it’s happened to someone somewhere sometime. But…and given my misquote I’m sure SA will use that as a way to sidestep my actual point…it seems awfully strange that so many women get woozy while hanging out with Bill Cosby. Certainly that has seemed to happen far more than you would expect through strict coincidence.
Sheesh! It was a parody of iiandyiiii’s responses to my observations about inconsistencies in Johnson’s story. Get a grip.
He’s probably talking about a different type of coffee.
There were no such inconsistencies.
So it’s Sarahfeena’s creative misquoting of what Starving Artist actually posted that you choose to put on your little list. And this seems to be honest to you? :dubious:
Here, I’ll post another one for sven’s list:
Yeah, given that most of them only came forward in support of a lawsuit ten years ago it’s almost like they might have had the idea suggested to them by the plaintiff’s lawyers or investigators, huh?
And of course we can’t discount the internet to explain the possible source of similarities given by more recent claimants.
The fact is these women might be telling the truth, or they might be acting out of cynicism, resentment, racism, frustrated ambition, or in pursuit of a money grab. There is simply no way to know. But one thing is for sure, and that is the fact that they’re all making similar claims in this day and age is meaningless. I could come forward and claim Cosby gave me drugged coffee forty years ago and then raped my girlfriend and I’d have just as much evidence in my favor as they have.
All right, this is the last straw. I’ve been withholding judgment but this is one accusation too many! Fry the bastard! If the courts can’t do anything then a flash mob can.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
The bolded parts raise a couple of questions in my mind. One: why, in this country where women are almost always given custody of their children no matter how bad a parent they may be, did her husband have primary custody of their daughter?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=iiandyiii]
Who cares? This isn’t relevant.
[/QUOTE]
It is relevant. I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I think you are making the point that it is irrelevant because a woman can be raped even if she is a bad person. Yes, agreed. I don’t think that anyone disputes that.
You are assuming that she was raped (or in this instance, drugged and tossed out the door) when the whole point of this exercise is to determine that very fact.
When evaluating someone’s propensity for truthfulness, it is fair to look at their past history with drug use and a possible inference of a character so poor that they are denied custody of their children when others similarly situated have such custody.
It’s the same when a prostitute claims to have been raped. The disbelief is not that a prostitute cannot be raped, per se, but that her truthfulness is called into question when she readily sells herself for sex 99 times out of 100 but on this 1 night she really, really didn’t consent.
I don’t know Bill Cosby or any of these women. There are no independent witnesses. Even admitting that we aren’t in a court of law, there is no reason to believe any person to the exclusion of the other. I certainly can’t proclaim Cosby’s innocence, so it puzzles me why some are so sure of his guilt.
It is entirely reasonable for me to assume that Cosby was a real poon hound and out of the thousands of women he likely had close contact with, there are fifteen or twenty who are either crazy, liars, money hungry, or doing it for whatever reason.
It is also entirely reasonable that Cosby is a rapist who cannot accept that a woman would scorn his advances. I’m not going to throw all of his records, tapes and DVDs into a pile and piss all over them based on these unsubstantiated allegations.
Missed the edit window: Just like before when a poster said it was irrelevant that the one woman brought her pajamas to his hotel room.
Again, that is not to say that a woman intending to stay the night in his hotel room cannot be raped. It is, however, evidence that she intended on a consensual sexual relationship. Maybe she wanted to spend the night to talk about acting; maybe she initially wanted sex, but changed her mind.
Also, maybe, she had consensual sex with Cosby and for whatever reason is now claiming rape and forgot to omit this detail. But it is important evidence that she told a story of not wanting sex but brought her pajamas. When we are dealing with a “he said she said” it is a telling omission.
To suggest otherwise highlights the bias of the people who believe every accuser all of the time. It would be like if Cosby admitted that he brought duck tape, rope, handcuffs, a switchblade knife, a hammer, his passport, and $10k cash and you rightfully said it was damning evidence. If I claimed that it was irrelevant because Cosby could have intended to rape her but didn’t actually go through with it, that would be technically true. However as persuasive evidence regarding who to believe it would be laughably insufficient.
:eek:
I can’t even comprehend what manner of reason makes it possible for the above words to be put together in that order.
So, I’m guessing I would look awfully suspicious if I claimed to be raped since I’ve willingly had sex more than 99 times.
That is some weapons grade stupid you’ve got there, son. Truly shock and awe.
Look Mr. White Knight Defender Social Justice Warrior Dude. The chicks aren’t going to lay you. They don’t want or need your help. You are a liability to the cause. Give it up, desperate needy boy.