Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cosby spreading the word

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Lloyd77 View Post
    Crosby admitted to being a lech but that does not mean he did anything illegal. The Ghomeshi case opened my eyes. I really believed the guy was guilty because he openly admitted to "rough sex" and he had all these women lining up against him. Turns out his three accusers that the prosecution relied on were lying and Ghomeshi had the e-mails to prove it. Back to Crosby: His one accuser that made it to trial showed up at Crosby's house with incense and bath salts. Not consensual??
    No-- not just lying-- colluding. And the *judge* even called them out on it. I read the court transcripts. I am *astonished*, absolutely fucking gob-smacked astonished, that none of those women have been hauled up on any sort of charges of their own and are running around free women. Canadians say the US is fucked-- it must only because they know deep in their hearts that their own country is long gone.
    FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
    It's time to call it out for what it is.



    The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

    http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by polite_disagreement View Post
      Yes, Virginia, men wanted sex so bad they will enter such a contract as long as it gives them plenty of sex. I hung around women most of the time, and they used to discuss it when they were thinking about marriage, just how big a burden it would be to put out every time he wanted it. They almost certainly didn't do very well, because men of all times have complained they weren't getting enough, but the women knew the rules very well.
      I am curious, without being tacky, to hear more about their discussions. Can you go into more detail and provide more fully-formed examples? What were their points and opinions? Was there any dissent? Was it in any large amount? This is the kind of information that young men would do good to hear straight up.
      FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
      It's time to call it out for what it is.



      The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

      http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

      Comment


      • #18
        I don't really care if Cosby did it or not. My true worry is the death of presumption of innocence. That concept is part of the bedrock of western civilization. We are getting perilously close to a witch hunt mentality.
        I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

        It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by pbisque View Post
          I don't really care if Cosby did it or not. My true worry is the death of presumption of innocence. That concept is part of the bedrock of western civilization. We are getting perilously close to a witch hunt mentality.

          Agreed. This is very distressing. No doubt it will be coming to America soon.
          FEMINISM is a HATE GROUP - Feminists are HATEFUL PEOPLE
          It's time to call it out for what it is.



          The World of Men - Men's Rights / MGTOW / Sites of Interest to Men

          http://forums.avoiceformen.com/showt...nterest-to-Men

          Comment


          • #20
            There were a lot of things that could have happened if he was found guilty that would have been a disaster for us. He was the out of place nail they wanted to hammer down as well.

            One thing was this trial was pushing was the statute of limitations not being applied to rape. Seven years is standard. This was trying to push that rape was so vicious that that night of drunk/drug sex 20 years ago the woman regretted can be pursued as rape.

            Also, I could hear the feminists rubbing their hands together in evil glee that they would be able to stick him in jail, so they could use this as a precedence to get others in jail, and more funding to their rape survivor (i.e. feminist indoctrination camp) programs.

            Whether he did it or not, it was also meant to take down a man who, in the 80's, was a model for a good man, at least publicly. The fact he dissed black America for not taking advantage of bettering themselves in the society (like he did, even as a black man,) and playing perpetual victims also gave him a target that they were wanting to take down. "How dare he actually work within the system and succeed," they would say. "That shit needs to be stopped. We need to be always oppressed!"

            Do I think he did these things? Likely, but I'm not privy to all the HARD evidence to be sure.

            Were the women willing at the time? Again, likely, but there is that whole hard evidence thing.

            But why wait so long to come forward? My suspicions are listed above. Think if making a man responsible for ALL the sex he had with women and consent issues had even more teeth of legal precedence beyond the statue of limitations. Even MGTOW population of the sphere who had sex in the past would not be safe.

            Comment


            • #21
              If you willingly take a mind altering drug and consent to going into a room alone with another person... you are at the very least accountable for putting yourself in a compromising position. That is my big beef with modern day interpretations of 'he said, she said' post-rape claims that involve drugs or alcohol... women tend to use the drugs to erase their accountability and agency. The counter-argument is that taking a 'drug' is not the same as consenting to sex... however how they hell can you tell, and how can you remember, and how can you prosecute someone in that circumstance when there is no evidence or witnesses and your already flawed memory is even more messed up?

              Unless the person kidnaps you, forces you to consume something or threatens physical harm (and some evidence of it), how can you differentiate 'rape' from regular every day sex.

              The Cosby issue has nothing to do with Cosby... it has everything to do if humans are allowed to force another human into jail cell for an activity that can be perfectly 'legal' or entirely 'illegal' without any witnesses or evidence and based off subjective state of mind memories that are always flawed.

              We are not actually protecting women by removing their agency as part of the equation. Women end up being raped... actual forced sex... because they don't take steps to ensure they are not vulnerable before the rape happens... because they are not taught that they have agency in putting themselves into that situation in the first place... or removing themselves from the situation if at all possible.

              Unwanted sex is not rape.. consent is not necessarily a 'want' thing, it is simply indicating to the other party that you will proceed. Mind reading or constant re-verification is a standard that is entirely impossible to meet.

              Pretending to protect women after the fact is immensely worse than telling women that they are NOT protected entirely from every possible circumstance and allowing the women to take the appropriate steps to protect herself.

              Going to a powerful mans house, taking mind-altering substances, unsupervised, and then claiming later on that the events that took place afterwords are a crime.. with no physical evidence... is asking the court to be mind-readers.

              It also allows the weaponization of the state against anyone who could have possibly be claimed to been in the room with a women unsupervised.

              Already there are company policies that will not allow men to take women clients out to a game without having a 3rd party witness to the event. It also makes managing a women difficult as you are constantly aware of any circumstance where you end up unsupervised by a 3rd party, which happens a lot.

              Making men super-agents in any male+female interaction is killing productivity and trust. Men cannot have more agency than women when it comes to individual actions.

              Yet, we still infantilize women "for their protection"... because women want us to and men WANT to be the big shining white knights that come to rescue the damsels in distress... regardless of if the distress is self-inflicted or not.

              Comment


              • #22
                GUILTY. This whole thing stinks.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Phobos View Post
                  GUILTY. This whole thing stinks.
                  There is a difference between being "found guilty" and being guilty. Constad initially attempted to press charges sometime around 2004. The case was not prosecuted due to lack of evidence. The only difference between now and then is the political climate. The earlier standard was "beyond a reasonable doubt." Now it appears to be "on the balance of the evidence" with a Ghomeshi-like piling on of "meetoo" statements counting as evidence (why is it a woman's sexual past cannot be counted as evidence while a man's can).

                  It is noteworthy that Constad attempted to charge Cosby and she attempted twice. In the interim she had settled a civil case for over a million. Civil law has always been based "on the balance of the evidence" and presumably Cosby received legal advise before paying out that kind of money. On the other hand, a confidant of Constad's testified that the accuser had planned to nail some unnamed celebratory in advance of the alleged sexual assault. Apparently this testimony did not carry much weight with the jury.

                  So Constad experienced being fingered by Cosby with the result that she was made rich by him, plus he is convicted and could do jail time pending appeals. Might be the most expensive feel in history. But this is not unlike putting a john in jail while proclaiming the hooker who took his money to be a victim.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I posted in pibsque's thread so I won't repeat myself much here.

                    I simply can't understand how 5 testimonies that have absolutely no factual first-hand knowledge of the charges at hand is anything other than unduly prejudicial. Most trials don't allow "past bad acts" for that very reason.
                    "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
                    "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I'm starting to see a sort of after the fact hypergamy in these things. All of this "misbehavior" from these famous men was just fine while these guys are at the top of their game. It's only after they fade from the spotlight a bit when these women "realize" they were raped. It's very analogous to wild animals really. A new alpha takes over. The old one is either dead or severely wounded. The harem he thought genuinely loved him gets up and starts hanging out with the new alpha.

                      There is a reason it was once viewed as better to die on the battlefield.
                      I used to think collapse was inevitable. Now I realize it is necessary.

                      It was only a matter of time before the bicycles realized that they in fact did not need the fish.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Manalysis View Post
                        Check out my Cosby videos and writings: https://archive.org/details/BillCosbyAVoiceOfReason

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X