Simpler than that (and also closer to what we’re discussing here), saying: “X is more likely than Y” does not imply that you know the likelihood of either X or Y, or how much more likely X is than Y. (A simple example of this is the statement: “it’s more likely to rain on a cloudy day than on a clear day”.)
Every day is a cloudy day and clear day and a rainy day and a rainless day somewhere on earth. And weather causation has nothing to do with rape causation.
What you call probabilistic reasoning is called irrelevant speculation designed to mislead the audience.
It should be noted that Traitz isn’t really actually sexual assault or rape (how many does this make now?), merely that Cosby offered her drugs and came on to her. It should also be noted that she has a lengthy criminal history, including acts of deception and fraud.
Seems a little hypocritical to speak of “the vultures turning this way now” when before that you’ve pointed out you quoted a woman who spoke to you reluctantly and who didn’t want to get put out to dry with the media.
Y’know, Cosby’s friends (those of anyone in such a situation) should be very wary of anyone in media actively soliciting their opinion. Those who wish to say something pro or con should put it out there of their own initiative when and if comfortable with themselves about it and through their own chosen channels and control the message.
Hannibal Buress, the man credited with starting the Cosby media storm, clarifies that he didn’t ever accuse Cosby of rape and that he doesn’t have a smoking gun. His joke was just reminding people that some women did accuse Cosby of rape.
I’ll be interested to see what they do, but I’m not getting the point of this. They paid for tickets which means that they’re giving money to Cosby. He’s getting paid if they show up or not. Comedians are used to hecklers, so it won’t be news to him. I’m sure he’s been expecting for something to happen. But mostly, they’re ruining the show for other people who paid for entertainment.
I can understand people protesting something they don’t like. But this doesn’t seem to be doing anything other than hurt the innocent people who paid a lot of money for a show.
Except that the protesters believe that the attendees are not innocent, but are in fact implicitly complicit in Cosby’s evasion of justice. As Monty so adroitly points out, the goal is to keep people away from Cosby’s shows so that he loses income and popular support.
I certainly don’t agree with it, but it’s no different from any other public protest.
Respectful. This was not my experience, it is inconsistent with the man I know, we shall see, etc.
Not a counterattack filled with imputations against the complainants’ character and motivations.
Rashad’s comment was clumsy in making it about a “legacy” since that just brings us around to the so-often seen debate, about whether you can separate the person from the work.
That’s the puzzling thing. There is no next show. There were 3 scheduled shows in Canada, and this is at the last show.
These shows would have been canceled except the contracts were already in place before the media storm. The mayors of the towns wanted the venues to cancel, but the contracts prohibited that. Going forward, the mayors would not allow further contracts to be made.
If that’s what they were trying to do, they achieved the opposite. They bought tickets for the last event, giving Cosby more money than he would have gotten. Keeping other attendees away doesn’t change Cosby’s income. The ticket sales were already made. Cosby gets the same income regardless of what they do. Since there were no further shows, no one was deterred from anything.
Ironically, the protesters just added to Cosby’s popular support by forcing the people attending to defend him.
This lady was so determined to tell everyone how much of a monster Bill Cosby is that she had to run toward people to attempt to shame and hurt people who aren’t doing anything to her.
The bigger question for me is how anyone could be implicitly complicit in Bill Cosby’s evasion of justice. That says that people holding a negative opinion of Bill Cosby and airing it are somehow creating justice while people not holding an opinion or holding a positive opinion of Bill Cosby are somehow creating an injustice. That’s an odd view of justice to me, especially since there’s no way of knowing what really happened.
Follow-up to this article earlier in this thread. In this article, Cosby’s attorney accuses CNN of creating a smear campaign by only showing Beverly Johnson without also adding her ex-boyfriend’s testimony that she only spoke well of Cosby and that she had not told the story to him.
According to TMZ, CNN sent a letter to Cosby’s attorney:
Mark Burk, the ex-boyfriend is now suing CNN for $19M for defamation.
There seems to be a double standard for airing some people’s testimony over others’ testimony. Some people with criminal records got air time while others were deemed as unreliable witnesses.
Typically a protester for a cause like this believes the people they are shaming are harming, either the protesters themselves, or people they care about.