[Serious] PSA: Rape Apologetics

[Angrboda]

So Huggy,  

If I steal your wallet and don't get caught, am I guilty of stealing your wallet?

That's a simple question with a yes or no answer.

[arewethereyet]

So Huggy,  

If I steal your wallet and don't get caught, am I guilty of stealing your wallet?

That's a simple question with a yes or no answer.

No it isn't. I stole the wallet but didn't get caught. Am I guilty of stealing the wallet?

[brewer]

I stole the wallet but didn't get caught.  Am I guilty of stealing the wallet?

I'll take a stab at that.

No, because I offered you unidentified drugs, and you took them, knowing full well I intended to steal your wallet and that you'd be unable to object.

How's that for rationalization?

[Angrboda]

No it isn't.  I stole the wallet but didn't get caught.  Am I guilty of stealing the wallet?

It was a joke, dear.

[arewethereyet]

No it isn't.  I stole the wallet but didn't get caught.  Am I guilty of stealing the wallet?

It was a joke, dear.

Apologies.

I've no sense of humor in this particular thread.

[Huggy Bear]

It's like this, Huggy. He admitted to drugging them and screwing them. The legal system screwed up, it's true. He's guilty of rape, he admitted it himself.

So Cosby admitted to rape? I read the affidavit and saw no such admission, you're going to have to prove that.

Getting out of prison because due process wasn't followed does not make him innocent. If you don't want to understand and admit that, all hope is lost on you.

The conviction was OVERTURNED, which means the assumption of innocence is still in effect, how do YOU not understand that part?

---

And the conviction was overturned... your point?

Huggy, why don't you answer Camus's question?

***

Given what you know regarding the situation, which determination would you make?

A) Bill Cosby is a rapist.

B) Bill Cosby is not a rapist.

We know the thing you pick isn't legally binding. But which one do you think is true?

LFC's question was regarding the accusers who waited past the statute of limitations... On what evidence am I to base my determination of guilt or innocence?

---

So Huggy,  

If I steal your wallet and don't get caught, am I guilty of stealing your wallet?

That's a simple question with a yes or no answer.

That's a loaded question...

If you stole my wallet and didn't get caught, how do I know you stole it? If I know you stole it and accused you of such, then you having the wallet in your possession would be the proof of such.

Now let me ask you a question, if you accuse me of stealing your wallet 40 years ago, how am I supposed to prove I didn't?

[Rev. Rye]

It's like this, Huggy. He admitted to drugging them and screwing them. The legal system screwed up, it's true. He's guilty of rape, he admitted it himself. Getting out of prison because due process wasn't followed does not make him innocent. If you don't want to understand and admit that, all hope is lost on you.

Just so everyone's clear, not only does Cosby have 5 dozen women accusing him of sexual assault, but the guy admitted to drugging women with sedatives to make them more pliable for sex in a sworn deposition in 2005. And the only reasons he's not still in jail are because said deposition was given under the condition that its contents not be used in a criminal trial. While the cops are permitted to lie to perps about most anything, the sole exception is that they can't lie about or renege on promises of immunity. That shit can be, has been, and just was used to overturn convictions. That said, evidently, even Cosby's legal team didn't know this at the time. I'm sure any or all of the other 59 women who've accused him would love to be able to do their own cases, but the only reason they don't do so is because the law won't allow them to do so.

I know the court of public opinion can be utterly barbaric. I haven't witnessed an actual lynching, but everything I've read about it tells me it's disgusting on every level. I've mentioned multiple times another incident (the Brooke Hart case), one where the victims were A) White, and B) likely guilty of the crime they were accused of, and how, even divorced from the racial aspects and the fact that many were accused, but innocent, the court of public opinion can still be utterly vile. Even these days, where the worst outcome that befalls many people is making them be the object of Twitter's latest 2-minutes' hate, it can strike me as, at my most cynical, a form of McCarthyism with varying degrees of flesh-world impotence and a possible hope of being as effective as Stalinism. But, when the victim is a man who's been accused of drugging and sexually assaulting dozens of women, and has actually admitted to such?

---

LFC's question was regarding the accusers who waited past the statute of limitations... On what evidence am I to base my determination of guilt or innocence?

On their testimonies, on the cumulative effect of dozens of said testimonies (some going back from even before shit hit the fan in 2014), on the fact that Cosby has admitted he drugged women for sex (which A: squares with many of said women's testimonies, and B: is rape), and on the fact that you have both a functioning brain (though this may be up for debate, I admit) and enough investment in the case that you're still going on about it over the course of several years.

[arewethereyet]

It's like this, Huggy. He admitted to drugging them and screwing them. The legal system screwed up, it's true. He's guilty of rape, he admitted it himself.

So Cosby admitted to rape? I read the affidavit and saw no such admission, you're going to have to prove that.

Getting out of prison because due process wasn't followed does not make him innocent. If you don't want to understand and admit that, all hope is lost on you.

The conviction was OVERTURNED, which means the assumption of innocence is still in effect, how do YOU not understand that part?

---

Huggy, why don't you answer Camus's question?

***

Given what you know regarding the situation, which determination would you make?

A) Bill Cosby is a rapist.

B) Bill Cosby is not a rapist.

We know the thing you pick isn't legally binding. But which one do you think is true?

LFC's question was regarding the accusers who waited past the statute of limitations... On what evidence am I to base my determination of guilt or innocence?

---

So Huggy,  

If I steal your wallet and don't get caught, am I guilty of stealing your wallet?

That's a simple question with a yes or no answer.

That's a loaded question...

If you stole my wallet and didn't get caught, how do I know you stole it? If I know you stole it and accused you of such, then you having the wallet in your possession would be the proof of such.

Now let me ask you a question, if you accuse me of stealing your wallet 40 years ago, how am I supposed to prove I didn't?

First of all I asked you to answer the question of my guilt. When does not matter. If I stole your wallet, I am guilty. Doesn't matter if you know it, the cops know it, doesn't matter. I stole your wallet and am guilty of same.

My guilt exists regardless of who, other than me, knows about it. Period, full stop.

It's only loaded to you because you can't figure out how to make your answer fit your Cosby narrative. That's why you brought up the 40 years thing.

The statute of limitations has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. It has only to do with a crime being able to be tried in a court of law due to the passage of time.

For a supposed god believer, you sure like to make up different standards to fit what suits you.

[Huggy Bear]

It's like this, Huggy. He admitted to drugging them and screwing them. The legal system screwed up, it's true. He's guilty of rape, he admitted it himself. Getting out of prison because due process wasn't followed does not make him innocent. If you don't want to understand and admit that, all hope is lost on you.

Just so everyone's clear, not only does Cosby have 5 dozen women accusing him of sexual assault, but the guy admitted to drugging women with sedatives to make them more pliable for sex in a sworn deposition in 2005. And the only reasons he's not still in jail are because said deposition was given under the condition that its contents not be used in a criminal trial. While the cops are permitted to lie to perps about most anything, the sole exception is that they can't lie about or renege on promises of immunity. That shit can be, has been, and just was used to overturn convictions. That said, evidently, even Cosby's legal team didn't know this at the time.  I'm sure any or all of the other 59 women who've accused him would love to be able to do their own cases, but the only reason they don't do so is because the law won't allow them to do so.

I know the court of public opinion can be utterly barbaric. I haven't witnessed an actual lynching, but everything I've read about it tells me it's disgusting on every level. I've mentioned multiple times another incident (the Brooke Hart case), one where the victims were A) White, and B) likely guilty of the crime they were accused of, and how, even divorced from the racial aspects and the fact that many were accused, but innocent, the court of public opinion can still be utterly vile. Even these days, where the worst outcome that befalls many people is making them be the object of Twitter's latest 2-minutes' hate, it can strike me as, at my most cynical, a form of McCarthyism with varying degrees of flesh-world impotence and a possible hope of being as effective as Stalinism. But, when the victim is a man who's been accused of drugging and sexually assaulting dozens of women, and has actually admitted to such?

---

LFC's question was regarding the accusers who waited past the statute of limitations... On what evidence am I to base my determination of guilt or innocence?

On their testimonies, on the cumulative effect of dozens of said testimonies (some going back from even before shit hit the fan in 2014), on the fact that Cosby has admitted he drugged women for sex (which A: squares with many of  said women's testimonies, and B: is rape), and on the fact that you have both a functioning brain (though this may be up for debate, I admit) and enough investment in the case that you're still going on about it over the course of several years.

What Cosby admitted to was giving a woman quaaludes and her taking them of her own free will, even Constand by her own testimony said Cosby handed her some pills, she had no idea what the pills were but took them anyway...

Religion has lots of people with testimonies.  Using your logic, you should believe them, yet you're atheist... Why?

[vulcanlogician]

It's reasonable to assume someone is truthful when they incriminate themselves.

There is having good reason to believe testimony and then there is blindly believing testimony. What you ought to do is try to show that someone here is doing the latter... rather than asking: "Since you believe this testimony, why don't you believe all testimonies?" That's a ludicrous question to ask.