23
   

Bill Cosby accused of Rape - say it ain't so

 
 
FOUND SOUL
 
  5  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:38 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Roman Polanski at 43 gets an 13 year old girl drunk and has sex with her and takes nudes of her for his personal enjoyment in 1977 and it was worth arresting for but not major jail time because it was not a big deal


You do it every time. If you have to work, don't reply unless you know your facts, I hold off, so can you.

He avoided sentencing, fled to London, then France, 32 years later in 2009 they caught up with him, and he was arrested by Swiss Police at the request of US. But they were not successful in his extradition. He apologised to the woman and stated he regrated his act some 33 years before.

Next?
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 12:04 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
The standards of sexual behavior of the time were very not like the standards of today. I am not willing to judge Bill Cosbys action during the 60's and 70's by 2014 standards. That is unfair.

Don't you realize you are constantly contradicting yourself in your attempts to defend Cosby?

Morality hasn't changed since the 60's and 70's--surreptitiously drugging and sexually assaulting women wasn't acceptable then either, even though laws might have offered less protection to women at that time. What Cosby did then was wrong, and it's still considered wrong. This is all about the man's character.

And you acknowledged this in another post...

Quote:
Also remember thst till the mid seventies rape needed force, and people did not consider coercion force...cosby would have thought that he was not doing an illegal activity, though he had to know that it was wrong.


Of course he knew what he was doing was wrong, which is why he carefully selected vulnerable victims he felt confident he could silence. And that's why he's never admitted to what he's done to these women. And he continued to do these things way past the 60's and 70's---the civil suit he settled was in 2005, when such behavior was not only immoral, it was also clearly illegal.

Thank goodness that the rape laws now offer better protection than those in the 60's and 70's, and thank goodness we now recognize acquaintance rape for the reality it is--we now know that a rapist isn't always a stranger who jumps out of the bushes, it is far more often someone the victim knows, and someone who might look just like Bill Cosby.

And thank goodness for the courage of the women who are now speaking out against him. Many of these women were among the 13 Jane Does willing to testify against him in that 2005 civil suit, but they have now shed their anonymity, and revealed their names, and faces, and stories, and that reflects an enormous change in the empowerment felt by rape survivors in the past 9 years, something which is being reflected among rape survivors on campuses and in the military as well. Rape is no longer something it is considered acceptable to cover up.
Germlat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 12:23 pm
@firefly,
As Beth said....he's certifiable. Everyone can have a momentary lapse in judgement....But--this is an entirely different thing. I wouldn't be shocked to hear he's raped and thinks the victim deserves it for being "stupid"...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 12:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

The standards of sexual behavior of the time were very not like the standards of today.


you really are an idiot.

did your adult family members teach you that drugging and raping women was acceptable?

0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 12:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
certifiable

____

do you read anything other than the National Enquirer? you've got the Polanski stuff wrong, you're way off on Cosby, you don't even seem to understand what societal norms were when you were a boy
Germlat
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 12:59 pm
Osso has one of the strongest voices on this topic...but--I get her take on it..... Those that have ears will hear...
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:04 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Don't you realize you are constantly contradicting yourself in your attempts to defend Cosby?

Wrong on both counts, I dont defend Cosby and I dont contradict myself. It was wrong at the time, but it was not then the big deal that it is now, and Cosby's 60's and 70's behavior should be judged by standards of the time, not 2014 standards.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:14 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

certifiable

____

do you read anything other than the National Enquirer? you've got the Polanski stuff wrong, you're way off on Cosby, you don't even seem to understand what societal norms were when you were a boy

.Nobody knows the facts about Cosby, you have brought no evidence that I am wrong about sexual transgression standards of the time though certainly you must be aware enough to know that the standards today are much different.....it is indisputable, and we had a huge thread about polanski where I and others talked long and in depth on the subject so you know that my information does not come from the National Enquirer.

If you think that I get facts wrong you are always free to dispute them with evidence, but "neener-neener-neener" does nothing for me.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
It was wrong at the time, but it was not then the big deal that it is now, and Cosby's 60's and 70's behavior should be judged by standards of the time, not 2014 standards.

That's the point--his behavior was wrong at the time--even by the standards of the time. And it was unequivocally wrong by the mid-2000's.

Whether it was "a big deal at the time" is irrelevant to Cosby's immoral behavior. Even within the past 9 years, since he settled that civil suit, there has been a considerable change in our national conversation about rape, and our heightened awareness of rape, and our acceptance of the reality of rape, particularly acquaintance rape, and our disinclination to keep sweeping it under the rug, as well as increased willingness by rape survivors to speak out publicly. That civil suit, along with its accusations against Cosby, was publicized in 2005, it just failed to damage his reputation or his image. Things are very different now, as Cosby is finding out.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:25 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
That's the point--his behavior was wrong at the time

That is not the point, because everyone here has agreed that if he did the things that are claimed then he was wrong. THe dispute is over what should happen now ideally and practically given how the laws are written, and whether he did in fact do what he is accused of.

THis topic " was cosby wrong?" is a red herring.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:39 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Things are very different now, as Cosby is finding out.

it is good to see you up on this truth. One would hope that you care enough about justice to point out that Cosby must be judged by the standards that were in place when he did the wrong, if he in fact did, and not todays standards.
firefly
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
You're not making any sense. You're not even aware of how you are contradicting yourself.

As you admit, what he did decades ago, was wrong then--so he is being judged by the standards of the time. It was never acceptable to drug and sexually assault someone while they were completely incapacitated.

His "image" and clout has been able to shield him all these years--that's what's no longer working for him. People are now seeing the reality of what he's like.

His latest humiliation...
Quote:
Comedy legend Bill Cosby, who's facing renewed allegations of having drugged and sexually assaulted women decades ago, had his status as an honorary chief petty officer revoked Thursday by top Navy leaders.

Navy Secretary Ray Mabus and Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (AW/NAC) Mike Stevens rescinded the honorary chief title conferred in 2011, the Navy said in a press release.

"The Navy is taking this action because allegations against Mr. Cosby are very serious and are in conflict with the Navy's core values of honor, courage and commitment," the service said in the statement....





hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 01:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
I take note that Firefly tried to claim over two years in the Rape thread that the definition of rape has not changed, before she finally was willing to acknowledge the truth, it is interesting to see Beth here trying the same nonsense re the collectives view of getting substances onto women to help them get amped up for sex. Back in the day it was ok to encourage women to take things, and yes spiking punch with Everclear was OK too at least where I lived, but now women can only be offered, and they need to be told what they are putting in their mouths clearly.

In the cases were Cosby used misplaced trust in him to get women to take date-rape drugs (a term that did not exist then) he was predatory and of course wrong, but every woman who swallowed pills not asking what they were was stupid, and we need to remember that.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:03 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
It was never acceptable to drug and sexually assault someone while they were completely incapacitated.


But if the woman voluntarily took the drugs the law was never going to do anything about it, and the collective did not care much. Remember too that super drugged up sex was common, people would routinely take things like acid and have sex that they did not remember. So far as the law was concerned any trouble they got into after they got themselves drugged up was their own damn fault.
Germlat
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
It was never acceptable to drug and sexually assault someone while they were completely incapacitated.


But if the woman voluntarily took the drugs the law was never going to do anything about it, and the collective did not care much. Remember too that super drugged up sex was common, people would routinely take things like acid and have sex that they did not remember. So far as the law was concerned any trouble they got into after they got themselves drugged up was their own damn fault.

Why can't yo say you're wrong and quit?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:24 pm
@Germlat,
Quote:
Why can't yo say you're wrong and quit?

What am I supposed to have been wrong about?
FOUND SOUL
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
Your theory only works if, they took the drug willingly knowing that sex was next.. They took the drugs based on "trust" due to having personal issues at that time, making mention of that, at that time and being told "here is 3 herbal pills that will help you". I call that bullshit, blatant lie, as they were not herbal pills. So in reading up it's evident that these girls did not willingly take drugs for sex. They trusted a "mentor" apparently, that wanted to help their career, apparently when they were anxious, having period pains, situations that they chose to declare through trust and then took the drugs.

Cosby studied up on at least one girl before inviting her, had his staff look into her background.

Cosby quizzed (as he did his audience) another two girls about their past, finding out if they were vulnerable, weak.

Cosby had this addiction / belief it seems, to blame all parents for the actions of their children. If they were wearing an orange suit, it was the parents fault of their up-bringing of that child, whether that child was black or white.

Cosby had this Godly like belief that everyone that has had hardship, or pain of any description or bad childhood, should excel, make something of themselves, become someone in their own right. There was no excuse, after all, he was 9 when he had to work. He had to work, because his Father was a drunk and left for the Navy and he was left to bring up the brothers one sleeping in his bed, whilst his Mother Anna cleaned for a living. But she read to the boys every night, taught them the importance of education but Cosby, quit education only to revisit it and get a degree whilst in the Navy. "You don't do things wrong as it will embarrass your Mother". He is quoted as stating, in one of his shows.

The "children" yep, I'll state that, predominately that he attacked one way or the other, groped, interfered with, made them do things to him, had sex with (some), were all aspiring young girls, with dreams, goals, hopes, belief just like he had. Something was taken away from him, poverty, no Father, his childhood. But he made it. And he preached and preached and preached everywhere he went, for children to "make it". So perhaps he took away something, from these girls deliberately, to test their ability to later "make it" most became "someone" in the World after his rapes or in-appropriate touching. My question therefore is did he take to take, or did he think he was God.

It wasn't about black or white when it came down to education. That was strong on every level to "every" child.

It wasn't about black or white when it came down to "being someone" that was strong on every level to "every" child.

But to do so, he revelled in those that told stories of abuse, molestation, thinking of committing suicide, turning to God and coming out of it. He had these girls tell these stories live. He quizzed them and bought it out of them, where they were telling half the story. At the end, he would preach and tell them God may have been by your side, but it was "you" that did it.

There seems to be this guy who thinks he's God, can do what he wants, but also preach and make the World a better place, bring the lower class into believing they should at least be middle, bring the aspiring young writers, actresses and even young show hosts, to believe they can be someone and if the miss quote him he gets angry/ got angry, and told them straight out that they are not seeing it properly, themselves and miss quoting him.

I'm now starting to wonder if he had this distaste for "wanna bees" so took. Believing that by doing so to these people, they would rise so high to become someone, therefore, what he did had good in it.

He even kicked out a caretaker after 19 years as he heard, she practiced witch craft. What, was he afraid of a witch ? Wink No pun intended.

Power. The whole things is about power. After all the public saw him as a "King". Power. Preaching to audiences. In one incident he preached to a crowd of parents who where there to congratulation some form of success of their children and he preached. The journalist wrote how wrong that was. His come back was, not all parents in that audience were parents of the children, so it was aimed at those parents that aren't educating their children and making them believe, you are wrong.

He got very angry over her column.. Very angry.

He's hiding something from his childhood in my opinion. To go to those that have been abused and make them speak publically at becoming someone instead of a drug addict one would have to believe that you, too have lived something within your life that was so bad that you didn't like it and became someone. To then go on and do things to young women and take from them. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:55 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why can't yo say you're wrong and quit?

What am I supposed to have been wrong about?

Well... I guess you're a very sick man ...if you had ever offered your opinions to a professional ...you'd be committed.... But you'd rather keep them to yourself,. That's premeditation... Hopefully this post will help convict you of a future crime...I'll serve as a witness to your sickness...
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:57 pm
@Germlat,
Germlat wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why can't yo say you're wrong and quit?

What am I supposed to have been wrong about?

Well... I guess you're a very sick man ...if you had ever offered your opinions to a professional ...you'd be committed.... But you'd rather keep them to yourself,. That's premeditation... Hopefully this post will help convict you of a future crime...I'll serve as a witness to your sickness...


So rather than define what I am supposed to wrong about you launch Character assassination. At his point we have to assume that I am not wrong about anything.

If you figure out what you think I am wrong about you know where to find me. We will then investigate.
Germlat
 
  0  
Reply Sat 6 Dec, 2014 02:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Germlat wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why can't yo say you're wrong and quit?

What am I supposed to have been wrong about?

Well... I guess you're a very sick man ...if you had ever offered your opinions to a professional ...you'd be committed.... But you'd rather keep them to yourself,. That's premeditation... Hopefully this post will help convict you of a future crime...I'll serve as a witness to your sickness...


So rather than define what I am supposed to wrong about you launch Character assassination. At his point we have to assume that I am not wrong about anything.

If you figure out what you think I am wrong about you know where to find me. We will then investigate.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/17/2019 at 09:03:19