320 Years of History
Gold Member
Today, Bill Cosby was arraigned in court on three charges of felony aggravated indecent assault. Various headlines have for a while now been talking about "the fall of an icon." (Note: the content at the link is only the affidavit of the offended woman, that is, what she claims happened. None of it has been proven or disproven.)
Excuse me? The man was charged with a crime, not convicted of one. Isn't it a bit premature to think of the man as fallen? Does Mr. Cosby, along with all person's charged with a crime, not deserve the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty of the crime he's been charged with? The "court of public opinion," however seems already to have "convicted" Mr. Cosby. A television network cancelled an upcoming show that included Mr. Cosby and the headlines speak of "the fall of an icon." Really? Is that the nation we have become? If so, is that a nation truly worth defending against the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda? How does being that kind of a nation make us any different from the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a host of others having no semblance of human and civil rights?
Right now, the facts as we know them to be so are that women have accused Mr. Cosby of sexually assaulting them. Mr. Cosby has stated that the accusations are untrue.
Why is it that the mere making of an accusation is taken as "proof" that the accusation is true? Is that approach at all the one on which the U.S. was founded? Is that tack the one promised in the Constitution?
Mr. Cosby isn't running for political office, but we do the same thing when politicians or would be politicians make empty and (at the time) unfounded accusations. Basically, if one politicians accuses another before the latter can preempt the accusation, the latter is screwed.
When did we stop saying to people who make accusations, "So you say. Where's the clear and unambiguous proof that you are correct? And absent any, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself!" Do people not realize that by "buying into the 'guilty until proven innocent' model, we, as voters, not only allow ourselves to be manipulated, often to our detriment, but also foster the erosion of our nation?
Excuse me? The man was charged with a crime, not convicted of one. Isn't it a bit premature to think of the man as fallen? Does Mr. Cosby, along with all person's charged with a crime, not deserve the presumption of innocence until he is proven guilty of the crime he's been charged with? The "court of public opinion," however seems already to have "convicted" Mr. Cosby. A television network cancelled an upcoming show that included Mr. Cosby and the headlines speak of "the fall of an icon." Really? Is that the nation we have become? If so, is that a nation truly worth defending against the likes of ISIS and Al Qaeda? How does being that kind of a nation make us any different from the Soviet Union, North Korea, or a host of others having no semblance of human and civil rights?
Right now, the facts as we know them to be so are that women have accused Mr. Cosby of sexually assaulting them. Mr. Cosby has stated that the accusations are untrue.
Why is it that the mere making of an accusation is taken as "proof" that the accusation is true? Is that approach at all the one on which the U.S. was founded? Is that tack the one promised in the Constitution?
Mr. Cosby isn't running for political office, but we do the same thing when politicians or would be politicians make empty and (at the time) unfounded accusations. Basically, if one politicians accuses another before the latter can preempt the accusation, the latter is screwed.
When did we stop saying to people who make accusations, "So you say. Where's the clear and unambiguous proof that you are correct? And absent any, you need to keep your thoughts to yourself!" Do people not realize that by "buying into the 'guilty until proven innocent' model, we, as voters, not only allow ourselves to be manipulated, often to our detriment, but also foster the erosion of our nation?