|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bill Cosby
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Don't know about Cosby, honestly, though I find it unlikely that a woman would fake this kind of accusation when there's basically no return.
And as someone said on an article I read, the plaintiffs must be incredibly naive if they think they've got anything to gain by this.
And yet they seem to have gotten revenge (job offers being pulled, etc.). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and all.
30 years later. I know "revenge is a dish best served cold" but it's hard to think they've all collectively been sitting on this for 30 years waiting for the for proper time to hatch their evil plot. Especially since none of them were the ones who brought it up this time-- they are simply responding to interviews asking them about an old news story that someone else reignited.
Again, none of that means Cosby is guilty, of course. It's possible that the reason charges were not brought 30 years ago is because there simply isn't any evidence anything happened. But to suggest the women didn't come forward 30 years ago (when in fact they did) or that they are coming forward now in order to exact a long-delayed revenge simply doesn't fit the chain of events.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I believe that in all accusations of this nature the accused should be anonymous - as should the accuser - until charges are formally laid. Bill Cosby has already been tried by media and has suffered a significant blow to his reputation and his income - they've cancelled two projects on the back of this accusation which has not gone to trial yet - if it ever does.
Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
It's not fair for the media to assume guilt simply because of an historical accusation.
What if the woman is lying?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
What if the woman is lying?
Women. There are now multiple accusations from multiple accusers.
Of course, it's possible they are all lying.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
Isn't it the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
Isn't it the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Well yes, but in effect he is treated as innocent until proven otherwise. The fact is that once in the media he is presumed guilty.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
AFAIK the only people obliged to presume innocence until a guilty verdict are the officials who dish out punishment (e.g. judges, corrections officers, etc. etc.) It's a safeguard for the legal system, but not binding on the social system of gossip, media, friendships, etc. etc. After all, how could you enforce it in those cases?
Still, it's a decent principle, and anyone who uses it for a social model is probably going to be a better person than one who assumes guilt every time an accusation is made.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
The victim in a court of law is not on trial. Presumptions of innocence or guilt do not apply.
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
But we were discussing "verdicts" in non-judicial life--that is, what people say outside of the courtroom, to their friends, on Twitter, on other media, etc. etc.
This is why I feel sorry for those who DO know any of these people personally. Because you have to have SOME attitude toward the person you share a life with, and it's going to show up in the way you speak to him/her and the things you do as well. And attempted neutrality "because I'm not sure if you're telling the truth" is always going to read as "I don't trust you," in other words, "guilty."
It sucks.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
The victim in a court of law is not on trial. Presumptions of innocence or guilt do not apply.
But claimed victim who is judged to have lied under oath can become accused of a different crime. The victim is not on trial but it can become that.
As to whether the women would get anything out of such a late accusation, sometimes what a person wants is not money. To see their names in the news, the thrill of power in tearing down someone, to finally be believed. Lots of goals, good bad and weird.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
Yes. And when the people are distant from us it's possible to hold that in tension. To just "know that I don't know". But when you have to interact with those people the very gravity of those two possibilities-- one of which is true-- mean that one will naturally need to be cautious. If you believe the women are lying, you're going to need to be cautious about being in a romantic relationship or perhaps even certain sorts of social relationships. That's unfair, but it's a reality. If you believe the women are telling the truth, you're going to need to be cautious about the sorts of situations or trust you give to Cosby. Again, that's unfair, but it's a reality. Which is why he's lost work-- not because producers are mean-spirited judgmental gossips (although they may be) but because this is a business, and the producers are understandably wary about putting a project in jeopardy when the whole thing could blow up if more solid evidence emerges.
All deeply unfair, but a product of living in a world where there are unknowns. Our relationships and interactions are built on an assumed trust, when that breaks down, rightly or wrongly, there are consequences that simply can't be avoided.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Don't know about Cosby, honestly, though I find it unlikely that a woman would fake this kind of accusation when there's basically no return.
And as someone said on an article I read, the plaintiffs must be incredibly naive if they think they've got anything to gain by this.
And yet they seem to have gotten revenge (job offers being pulled, etc.). "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" and all.
30 years later. I know "revenge is a dish best served cold" but it's hard to think they've all collectively been sitting on this for 30 years waiting for the for proper time to hatch their evil plot. Especially since none of them were the ones who brought it up this time-- they are simply responding to interviews asking them about an old news story that someone else reignited.
Again, none of that means Cosby is guilty, of course. It's possible that the reason charges were not brought 30 years ago is because there simply isn't any evidence anything happened. But to suggest the women didn't come forward 30 years ago (when in fact they did) or that they are coming forward now in order to exact a long-delayed revenge simply doesn't fit the chain of events.
My knowledge suggests you are right. It is far, far more difficult to be alone in reporting a sexual assault than it is if you know someone else has gone forward before you. Just like the penguins on the edge of the ice berg wait until one jumps in and tests the waters, showing if there are sharks, leopard seals or killer whales there. If the first one is eaten, the others do not jump in.
In the recent Jian Ghomeshi allegations (a former CBC announcer), one person came forward, and than another, and in several weeks, there was a sizable group (8 women I think). But still only two have approached the police, and I suspect that most of the group will never report to the police because as soon as you do, in the general case, you are open to the "secondary trauma" of first police scrutiny and reliving the attacks as questioned. Then really heavily reliving the attacks at a preliminary court hearings, and then yet again at trial. Plus, the defence lawyers want the trials to be about the victim, and everything about their personal affairs, sexual lives and they really want to scare them off by grilling them on the witness stand. It is far, far different to be asked about your driving, your home security system (for example) than about someone hurting you physically and sexually.
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
The emphasis is all wrong - it misses the point that unless people are brought up to really understand what empathy is through direct experience, things inevitably go wrong. I don't see society looking at itself - it's far too busy pointing fingers, being justifiably outraged and making a big noise.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is why I feel sorry for those who DO know any of these people personally. Because you have to have SOME attitude toward the person you share a life with, and it's going to show up in the way you speak to him/her and the things you do as well. And attempted neutrality "because I'm not sure if you're telling the truth" is always going to read as "I don't trust you," in other words, "guilty."
It sucks.
I agree. At first I didn't find it hard to believe that some of the accusers were, not lying exactly, but mistaken. One woman in particular, who was known to have had an extended affair with him many years ago, was interviewed.
She said that as she read the details of the other women's accusations, "I thought, that happened to me, too!" As she said that, her eyes sort of lit up. She then told about one time when she had had a lot to drink and then woke up and knew she had, had sex but had no memory of it... etc. She honestly sounded pleased that she was able to include herself in the present scandal. That may be a horrible thing to say about someone but I don't mean it as a horrible accusation. What I mean is that when trying to report about something that happened long ago while under the influence of alcohol and drugs, we can honestly think something happened that didn't. And with all due respect to actors, most of whom are fine people who bring us entertainment and understanding as all artists do -- they do tend to love drama and being the center of attention more than most of us do. Most of the alleged victims were from this group. That's one reason I've been slow to believe it all and another reason is the "I can't really remember it, but I know it happened," nature of the reports.
Still, I finally went reluctantly over the edge with the latest report from the model/talk show host. I just can't give him the benefit of the doubt anymore. So now I'm thinking of the number of stories that begin with, "We were in his home," and so I wonder how much his wife knew. She's another one who would be hard for friends to know how to act around.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by Gwai quote:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
Actually no: there is the possibility of False Memory Syndrome (sometimes associated with recovered memory therapy) where people may partially recall events that actually happened but 'fill in the gaps'; where this gap-filling takes place it is very common for authority figures or people in the public eye to be named in the 'memory'.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
posted by Gwai quote:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
Actually no: there is the possibility of False Memory Syndrome (sometimes associated with recovered memory therapy) where people may partially recall events that actually happened but 'fill in the gaps'; where this gap-filling takes place it is very common for authority figures or people in the public eye to be named in the 'memory'.
false memory is less of a problem than brainwashing so the person is deliberately confused
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Logically speaking, yes; but most people are not very logical when it comes to their estimation of friends and relatives. And even those who are aware of false memory issues and charitable enough to apply that theory to the nasty situation--well, that's still going to be offensive to those claiming truth status for their accusations. It's not only "you don't believe me" but also "You think I'm not right in the head" (seriously, that's how I think most people would take it, right or wrong).
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Remember - he IS innocent at the moment until a court of law finds him guilty after the prosecution has proved the truth of the accusation beyond reasonable doubt.
Isn't it the presumption of innocence until proven guilty?
Well yes, but in effect he is treated as innocent until proven otherwise. The fact is that once in the media he is presumed guilty.
Isn't unwillingness to form an opinion until a government panel tells you what to think an abdication of both reason and moral responsibility? From from Ta Nehisi-Coates' thoughts on the matter.
quote:
And one cannot escape this chaos by hiding behind the lack of a court conviction. O.J. Simpson was not convicted in court for murdering his ex-wife. The men accused of killing Emmett Till were found innocent. ("If we hadn't stopped to drink pop, it wouldn't have taken that long," mused one of them.) Police and government forces conspired to kill a Black Panther, Fred Hampton. They were never criminally prosecuted in any court.
Courts belong to the society, not the other way around. This is why many Americans scoff at the idea that O.J. was never convicted of killing his wife. And this is why many other Americans scoff at the idea that the government didn't kill Fred Hampton. Ducking behind an official finding is kind of cowardice that allows us the luxury of never facing hard questions. Cowardice can be insidious. Sometimes it is a physical fear. Other times it's just taking the easy out.
And of course there are the practicalities of requiring everyone to presume innocence until a court conviction is reached. The (alleged) victims are not presuming innocence by leveling their accusations. I'm guessing your standard would require them to remain silent until a conviction is reached, which begs the question of how charges would ever be brought in such cases if victims are forbidden to come forward. Similar problems would exist for prosecutors, whose jobs more or less require them to prove the guilt of people you insist are innocent by virtue of the fact that they haven't been convicted yet.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
He will never be tried. Even if the statute of limitations has not already expired, what would be the point? It's not like jailing him will save others. At this point everybody knows, and women will avoid him like Ebola. He has what he deserves -- ignominy.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He will never be tried. Even if the statute of limitations has not already expired, what would be the point? It's not like jailing him will save others. At this point everybody knows, and women will avoid him like Ebola.
Given that OJ apparently has no problem getting dates, it would appear that is very much not the case.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
False Memory Syndrome tends to follow a particular pattern though. Vulnerable patient - usually a young woman - goes to see a therapist complaining of depression / anxiety / eating disorder / general malaise. Patient has no memory of childhood abuse but therapist is convinced that it happened and tells patient that her psychological symptoms are a smoking gun, with or without actual memories. Therapist develops intense relationship with patient using aggressive techniques of hypnosis, leading questions, truth serums, and the power of authority, to plant the idea of abuse in the patient's head. It's almost always a close relative who is implicated - usually a father or stepfather. Patient starts having nightmares and intrusive thoughts which are taken as "evidence" of abuse.
This kind of allegation is heartbreaking but doesn't fit the pattern of allegations in this case. For one thing, these kinds of false memories pretty much always relate to childhood experiences, repeated experiences, often which could not possibly have actually occurred, with a particularly high level of sexual sadism. It's important to understand that this can happen, but it's also important to understand the pattern of how this occurs, so that FMS doesn't become another general "women are lying, crazy bitches" stereotype in cases where this pattern simply hasn't happened.
What these women are saying is that they, as adults, were in a room with Cosby, and he drugged them and had sex with them when they were unable to consent. That appears to be his modus operandi. That being the case, "I woke up and knew I'd had sex but couldn't remember" suggests to me that another woman's drink was spiked and she was raped, rather than that some dumb broad downed a bottle of vodka and refused to take responsibility for her own actions.
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well said, Lamb Chopped. The problem, of course, is that if A accuses B of raping her then one cannot logically assume them both innocent. Either B is rapist or A is a liar of a horrible life-destroying kind. To assume them both innocent requires a Schroedinger's Cat type logic which is not always possible to actually believe.
The victim in a court of law is not on trial.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
Rape victims almost always are.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
He will never be tried. Even if the statute of limitations has not already expired, what would be the point? It's not like jailing him will save others. At this point everybody knows, and women will avoid him like Ebola. He has what he deserves -- ignominy.
Is there a statute of limitations on this sort of offence in USA? There isn't one in Canada. There is on at least some lawsuits, but none on such crimes as these would be if prosecuted.
I suspect that he probably will be arrested actually. Which is entirely different than actually getting to trial.
Knopwood is correct. Rape victims are on trial if they have to testify. I do not know how some cross-examining lawyers live with themselves. Victims are also traumatized by having to be ready to testify: a common scenario is that the trial is scheduled and the victim comes to court, waiting for the call to the witness stand. Once the defence lawyer understands that the victim is ready to testify, the guilty plea is pulled out. The victim is only saved from the actual courtroom experience, not from the immense stress of going to the court and all the anticipatory anxiety.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Is there a statute of limitations on this sort of offence in USA? There isn't one in Canada. There is on at least some lawsuits, but none on such crimes as these would be if prosecuted.
Like most things about the U.S. criminal justice system, the statute of limitations depends on what state you're in. Most states only exempt murder or attempted murder from the statute of limitations.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suspect that he probably will be arrested actually. Which is entirely different than actually getting to trial.
That seems unlikely, since the civil suit of ten years ago (from which most of our knowledge of the facts here is derived) was filed only after prosecutors refused to press criminal charges.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Hm.
Conceding what has been said about reserving opinion until proof is determined, I have been wondering if part of the reason for preemptive outrage at Cosby is not just due to his Dad image, but due to his habit of lecturing black youth on morality and positive image. A couple generations of young men were more or less told they should expect to be shunned and demonized if the didn't "pull their pants up." The considerable talents and insight of people like Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, and Chris Rock were not as important to him as the fact they dropped the f-bomb and the n-bomb. So, if enough evidence mounts that he was using star priviledge to abuse women, the amount of preaching he has done about other black men's characters is gonna really whip back on him.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Kelly:
Yes, Hannibal Buress, the comedian who brought the allegations back to centre stage a few weeks ago, explicitly cited Cosby's moralizing in his criticism.
AOL
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Found this the other day. Kind of appropriate, in retrospect...
Honest John
[ 21. November 2014, 19:31: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
There it is. The only Buress quotes I have read so far have been out of context snippets, but it doesn't surprise me he went there. Cosby's derigatory comments about young black men have been angering people for a long time.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Found this the other day. Kind of appropriate, in retrospect...
Honest John
I was trying to get the Eddie Murphy clip from "Raw" where Cosby phones Murphy to complain his son is being unfluenced by Murphy's filth and flarn. Murphy calls Richard Pryor for advice, and Pryor says, "Tell him he can suck my dick, too."
Tee-hee, but also it shows how invested Cosby himself was in his own status as moral Grand Poobah.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Found this the other day. Kind of appropriate, in retrospect...
Honest John
I was trying to get the Eddie Murphy clip from "Raw" where Cosby phones Murphy to complain his son is being unfluenced by Murphy's filth and flarn. Murphy calls Richard Pryor for advice, and Pryor says, "Tell him he can suck my dick, too."
Here ya go.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Thanks. My copy- paste function was crapping out on me.
[note to the faint of ears: language definitely NSFW and the point is made at " Tell him to have a Coke and a smile and to STFU." You needn't suffer through Murphy's recounting of his scatalogical Pryor imitations at age 14.]
[ 21. November 2014, 19:59: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
We are lost if we accept guilt by accusation: it's the justice of the lynch mob.
Even if Jesus was unjustly tried and condemned, he was still guilty of blasphemy!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
We are lost if we accept guilt by accusation: it's the justice of the lynch mob.
Even if Jesus was unjustly tried and condemned, he was still guilty of blasphemy!
I understand your first point, but I'm not sure how the example is supposed to back it up.
Assuming you are arguing for a presumption of Cosby's innocence, wouldn't a better example be someone who WAS tried and convicted, but turned out to be innocent?
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
We are lost if we accept guilt by accusation: it's the justice of the lynch mob.
Except we're not talking about legal guilt. As has been pointed out numerous times, Cosby seems to stand in no legal jeopardy. What you're objecting to is private individuals coming to conclusions based on evidence available. In the current case that consist almost entirely of (alleged) victim testimony. What seems to be objectionable to most on the side against using our judgement and reason is a visceral reaction to the notion that a woman's word could, in some circumstances, be considered as credible (or even more credible) than a man's. Or that a woman's word should count for anything.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Yup! Perhaps I was somewhat confusing!
My illustration was with regard to "guilt by accusation", lynch-mob mentality, and its central role in the gospel story, so that for Christians due process should be no light thing. I did not mean to suggest that Cosby would not get a fair trial. I hope, too, that his accusers will get a fair hearing.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
Here's the famous, "pull your pants up" speech. It was at a NAACP meeting about education where he was asked to speak.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Was waiting to see what someone who read it for the first time might think, but to me, whatever legitamate point Cosby might have had to make is drowned out by his cringeworthy use of some really godawful stereotypes. ( eight kids by eight fathers, for Chrissake?)
And the only way this pertains to the OP, as I said, is to explain some of the fury aimed at Cosby.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
Even if Jesus was unjustly tried and condemned, he was still guilty of blasphemy!
Not if what he said was *true*.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
--Given the anger I've sometimes seen from Cosby: **if** he's guilty, it might be that all this pressure will make him angry enough to let at least some of the truth burst out.
--I loved his "Fat Albert" cartoon series, when I was a kid. Still do. It's in syndication on a local station, in the wee hours of the morning. If I'm awake, I'll watch it.
IIRC, someone speculated upthread that the show would be politically incorrect these days. (I hate that phrase, but I know what was meant.) The thing is, it was based on his childhood friends. The boys (and all the central characters were) all had issues--weight, stuttering, being a con artist, etc. They didn't always treat each other well; but they also worked together to solve problems. The show pioneered talking to kids about difficult subjects. And Fat Albert was the heart and soul of the group. He tended to have more wisdom and a more sensitive conscience than the other kids.
The show was and is a good influence. It will be a pity if it isn't aired any more. I'm not sure there's a way around that, though, unless someone edits out Cosby's live scenes. He did all the voices, though, IIRC, so...
Whatever the truth is, it needs to come out.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Media 'trials' bother me. There's no real weighing of evidence, no judge to rule definitive on admissibility and relevance, and no real check on the difference between reality and a good sell.
In short, all the painstaking defences imported into trial law to prevent miscarriages of justice are replaced by the slim reed of ''so sue me then".
I can see the implication of hypocrisy from recent posts. So maybe Bill Cosby's private life was seriously at odds with some of his public pronouncement. But such stories about the famous seem to make such a good sell, don't they? Why do we think that is?
What is actually being fed by this kind of story? Curiosity, a kind of iconoclasm about the famous, a certain prurience?
It isn't due process is it?
Of course it matters if there have been real offences, real injustices, real abuse. But aren't questions like that too important to be distorted by media circusses? Free speech is a great principle and I'm not in favour of media censorship either. But in my gut I feel there is something wrong in principle, something unfair, something basically out of control in these kinds of exercises. However interesting or shocking they may appear to be, whatever value they may seem to have in bringing into the light things which may have been hidden.
Modern media circusses make me very uneasy. They often have a smell of mob rule and lynch law. I'm not sure they are doing a lot of good in support of the generally very useful processes of serious investigative journalism. Even if what is at risk is reputation and consequential earnings, rather than liberty, those aren't little things to toss about.
I've known and counselled victims of sexual abuse. That isn't a little thing. The effects are invariably devastating. The need for justice is real, a strong inner imperative. So is the need to be believed and heard. So I'm not writing out of any desire to minimise that either. But my unease remains. This doesn't seem a very good way of fairly pursuing the truth of things.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Spot on, Barnabas62! You certainly speak for me. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Barnabas62, I agree about the potential for lynch law and media witch hunt, but the law bears responsibility for that by shutting off a legal outlet via statutes of limitations.
Multiple, independent accusations are more than sufficient probable cause to send someone to trial. When crimes like this are alleged, justice should be swift and public, starting with the catharsis of bracelets and a perp walk, ending in a speedy and public trial before a jury of their peers.
Some states, like New York, have abolished the statute of limitations for rape. All should followed their lead. There's no statute of limitations for murder. Neither should there be for molesters.
Deny righteous fury a legal outlet, and it'll go elsewhere.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
posted by itsarumdo quote:
false memory is less of a problem than brainwashing so the person is deliberately confused
And you base that statement on?
The pre-suppositions in the story about Mr Cosby are amazing - everyone assumes that the number of accusers makes the accusations true, but this is not obvious, or fact, or even likely to make it true. The fact that the accusations have (re-)surfaced because of an outburst by an african-american 'humourist' doesn't make them any more true or credible.
Hell, on the basis of that you could say it was reasonable, credible and likely to be true that Lyndon LaRouche and David Icke are right and the Queen, Prince Philip, etc, are all giant lizards.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
It's not just multiple independent allegations, it's that they've reoccurred for years, and display a similar fact pattern.
Vox asks some hard questions about why, when it comes to victims accusing "respected" figures, there's an incentive to be skeptical beyond what the facts support.
In addition to abolishing statutes of limitations, prosecutors need to be bolder. All that's necessary for a conviction is that a single, credible witness convince a jury that they're telling the truth. It's one of the glories of the common law that it takes just one brave person to stand up and say, "No more." Insistence on corroboration and physical evidence is too often an excuse to be risk-averse.
With multiple witnesses making credible, similar statements, the person accused should be dragged out of bed before the ink's dry on the warrant. Anything less is a travesty of justice.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So maybe Bill Cosby's private life was seriously at odds with some of his public pronouncement. But such stories about the famous seem to make such a good sell, don't they? Why do we think that is?
What is actually being fed by this kind of story? Curiosity, a kind of iconoclasm about the famous, a certain prurience?
It isn't due process is it?
Of course it's not due process, it's not intended to be, it's not a court room. We have a right to freedom of the press, free speech and freedom of thought outside the courts. If I hear my neighbor yelling and my neighbor's wife screaming and see her with bruises on her face the next day, I have a right to think he's an abuser, and I don't have to wait for a court case to think that.
The media and the public opinion it promotes is a big part of what makes a person rich, famous and admired in the first place. If the press hadn't been there at the hospital, to take pictures of Princess Diana holding sick children on her lap would she have become "the people's Princess?" She often called the press herself when she knew she was going to such an event. She used the press to create her image.
If the press hadn't advertised, then praised, Bill Cosby's work thousands of times over the years, would we know who he was today? It's because he was famous and beloved that this story has created so much interest. I refuse to cop to charges of prurient interest. Neither do I think he suddenly has a right to privacy and a hush of silence in the media over these allegations when the media helped make his career in the first place.
--------------
Much of his work, like "Fat Albert," and "the Cosby Show," did have value. They effected the thinking of a whole generation in a positive way. That's why I think this is all such a shame. Bill Cosby, Bill Clinton, MLK to some extent, have tarnished such good work, such excellence, because of a sick weakness in this area and it's just such a sorry thing. There's something in the Bible about men who have everything going for them but have not self-control. I can't find it.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Personal opinion isn't proof. And personal opinion can be manipulated.
Probable cause is a finding which constitutes a part of due process, isn't it? And aren't judicial controls in play before it can be found? Nor does probable cause mean that an accused is actually guilty, simply that they have a case to answer.
Of course one can argue that judicial processes have been watered down by various means, some of which may injure the pursuit of justice. I don't like statutes of limitations in these cases. But none of that makes trial by media or presumption of guilt good things in themselves, or some kind of legitimate response to judicial inadequacies.
These aren't pettifogging restrictions, or denials of the obvious. They are about trying to be fair and just.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
Specific allegations aren't, by themselves, a witch hunt or lynch law, although they can of course lead to it.
Probable cause simply means evidence that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a) a crime's been committed, and b) a particular person committed it. It's a flexible, common sense standard.
The presumption of innocence is, TBH, a misnomer. All it means is that, in court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent, or that prosecutors or police ought to assume that. Just the opposite, they shouldn't be moving forward if they don't believe in a suspect's guilt.
In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
This is the ONLY way of pursuing the truth of things. We'll get better at it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Byron:
Specific allegations aren't, by themselves, a witch hunt or lynch law, although they can of course lead to it.
Probable cause simply means evidence that would cause a reasonable person to believe that a) a crime's been committed, and b) a particular person committed it. It's a flexible, common sense standard.
The presumption of innocence is, TBH, a misnomer. All it means is that, in court, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It doesn't mean that a person's factually innocent, or that prosecutors or police ought to assume that. Just the opposite, they shouldn't be moving forward if they don't believe in a suspect's guilt.
In the face of multiple, independent, and credible accusations, the public has every right to consider someone guilty, and treat them as such. If that person wants to defend themselves, great, let 'em do it, and folk will decide who to believe.
It is not trial by media except as courts are broken and unable to fairly decide. And from the link, expired their mandate in USA. Convergent evidence tells us Cosby is guilty of at least some of this.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
