The Pound Cake speech

[NightFox]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

 

[rightwinger]

Yet... in private. He showed a dark side. A man who could likely have sex freely from almost any girl he wanted... instead prefered to have sex with them in a semi conscious state.. or probably even unconscious.

No doubt Cosby was a comedic genius
But he could have had consensual sex with almost any woman he wanted. Instead, he enjoyed having sex with semi conscious women

"Semi conscious"?

LOL!!! And it was consensual.

Consensual drugged sex?

 

[Correll]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

And that is the crux of the matter, ie teh way the Left spun his admission of giving qualudes to women, for their consumption, with the false implication that he "DRUGGED them" ie gave them drugs without their knowledge or consent.

 

[NightFox]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

So if a minor consents to sex with an adult, you're okay with that too? Because the legal concept of diminished capacity is the same underlying theory at play in this case. What you're claiming is that these women consented to be drugged and then consented to allow their attacker to do whatever the he wants to them while they're high, Cosby's 60 accusers disagree with your contention. It's also curious that the fact Cosby (by his own admission) had to give his victims drugs BEFORE having sex with them doesn't raise any alarm bells with you at all.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED CONSENT, never has, never will and thank God for it.

I'm sure glad the law protects people from those that think like you do, otherwise sexual predation would be even more rampant than it is now.

 

[Correll]

Some of you go too far.
Cosby was no rapist. I do not know all of the details of all of his cases, and neither does anyone else here, but I don't know if I would call what he did as sexual assault either. It wasn't with most. Assault is something you do to someone against their will. Cosby gave young women primarily Quaaludes - which BTW - was quite popular at the time. Many of those girls had no issues with taking the drugs or having sex afterwards. You can't do this voluntarily and then come back and say he was at fault.
My problem with Cosby was that a few occasions he admittedly slipped a few gals more qualudes without their knowledge.
A higher dose of the drug can and will put you in a semi-conscious state, with the person only partially aware of what is happening. This is some weird fetish Cosby apparently had.
But to call him a rapist is not correct. Even if you drug them further and have sex with them without their full knowledge. Fucked up and wrong - yes. Rape - no. For the simple fact the girls came to him knowing sex was going to happen. He just slipped a few more of them more drugs than they knew.

Mostly agreed, though I did not see any of the cases where he admitted to giving them ADDTIONAL drugs without their knowledge.

Assuming that is true, then I fully agree.

I heard that in a discussion on the news at the time. I assumed they were telling the truth.

Whoa. YOu assumed the media was telling the truth?

 

[Correll]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

And that kind of shit happens a lot.

 

[Correll]

Yet... in private. He showed a dark side. A man who could likely have sex freely from almost any girl he wanted... instead prefered to have sex with them in a semi conscious state.. or probably even unconscious.

No doubt Cosby was a comedic genius
But he could have had consensual sex with almost any woman he wanted. Instead, he enjoyed having sex with semi conscious women

"Semi conscious"?

LOL!!! And it was consensual.

Consensual drugged sex?

Yes.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

So if a minor consents to sex with an adult, you're okay with that too? Because the legal concept of diminished capacity is the same underlying theory at play in this case. What you're claiming is that these women consented to be drugged and then consented to allow their attacker to do whatever the he wants to them while they're high, Cosby's 60 accusers disagree with your contention. It's also curious that the fact Cosby (by his own admission) had to give his victims drugs BEFORE having sex with them doesn't raise any alarm bells with you at all.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED CONSENT, never has, never will and thank God for it.

I'm sure glad the law protects people from those that think like you do, otherwise sexual predation would be even more rampant than it is now.

How the fuck did you get to that stupid conclusion?
Because I don't think a woman should be able to convict a man of rape because she was inebriated, and either don't remember what happened or has regrets - that means I am okay with a child predator??
I have seen you around, I wasn't aware you were this ridiculous??

 

[rightwinger]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

So if a minor consents to sex with an adult, you're okay with that too? Because the legal concept of diminished capacity is the same underlying theory at play in this case. What you're claiming is that these women consented to be drugged and then consented to allow their attacker to do whatever the he wants to them while they're high, Cosby's 60 accusers disagree with your contention. It's also curious that the fact Cosby (by his own admission) had to give his victims drugs BEFORE having sex with them doesn't raise any alarm bells with you at all.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED CONSENT, never has, never will and thank God for it.

I'm sure glad the law protects people from those that think like you do, otherwise sexual predation would be even more rampant than it is now.

How the fuck did you get to that stupid conclusion?
Because I don't think a woman should be able to convict a man of rape because she was inebriated, and either don't remember what happened or has regrets - that means I am okay with a child predator??
I have seen you around, I wasn't aware you were this ridiculous??

So, if you find a woman who is passed out drunk and you take her clothes off and have sex with her

That is her problem

 

[Seawytch]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

You need to google the word “coincidence”

And was exchanging favors for sex with these women over decades, decades before that.


FUnny how you left that out of the timeline....


View attachment 508643

Again you need to Google the word coincidence

Cosby was raping women both before and after the 2004 speech
He was not exchanging favors for sex
He was luring women to his home by promising to help with their careers. He then drugged them and raped them.
That is not an exchange

He did not drug them. You are a lying whore.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Yes, he drugged them. He gave them quaaludes, admitted it under oath. Those are a drug, dumbass.

Why Bill Cosby Admitted to Getting Drugs to Have Sex With Women

Experts address how someone with access to the best legal advice could have made such an explosive admission

time.com

 

[struth]

I don’t know if Cosby is guilty or innocent but what is interesting, is anyone of renowned who speaks out against the establishment often ends up accused, imprisoned, or suicided. Julian Assange being a very good example. There certainly seems to be a pattern here that goes back centuries.

yeah it was a conspiracy that all those women accused Cosby of the same thing

nah it’s only a conspiracy when groups of women accuse dems, their donors and their sheep of the same thing

 

[Dragonlady]

In 2004 Bill Cosby gave a scathing speech condemning much of what is going on in Black culture. Bill pointed to such tings as the drop out of school rate in the Black community, the higher level of violence in the Black culture, the lack of pride in how they present themselves, the higher use of drugs and the higher rate of fatherless homes, etc. to communicate that the majority of suffering and pain within the Black culture is self inflicted. You can blame whitey all day, and there may even be some truth to those feelings, but at the end of the day Black homes within the Black community are not going to escape such things as poverty with a fatherless rate of about 70%. It does not even work for whites.

Bill Cosby's Famous "Pound Cake" Speech, Annotated

A decade ago Cosby gave a speech excoriating poor blacks for not living up to the promise of the civil rights movement. Here's a look back based on what we know now.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Naturally, there was a backlash from the Left like the article above. The response from the Left was not to consider if Bill had any good points at all. No, instead the article above simply dismisses every point Bill made,. especially on some statistics he may have had wrong, and dismisses Bill as a Black and even dismisses him as a human being by pointing to him doing jail time for drugging women and then molesting them. Therefore, Bill should just drop off the face of the earth and die because of his past sins. Everything he ever said and did has now been negated for all eternity, even the money he had generously given to the Black community to help.


What I don't know, however, is if the reason why Bill is in jail is because of that Pound Cake speech. Is the Left so diabolical, so evil, that they engage in efforts to destroy people like Bill who oppose them publicly? Am I saying Bill is innocent? No. Am I saying he is guilty? No. What I am saying is that I think he opened himself as a target, and as such, it could be that the Left will either find something in a person's past that will condemn them, or if they can't find anything, will make it up. And as Bill was recently released from jail, it appears those who were out to get him went about it in an unlawful way.

You’re damn Skippy that every good thing Bill Cosby ever said or did in his entire life is negated by the fact that as he was becoming rich and famous and a leader within the black community, he was using his wealth, his fame and his “good guy” image to attract, lure, drug and rape women that he met along the way.

More than 60 women have come forward to say Cosby drugged and raped them. Going back to his “I Spy” days.

Many said nothing because who would believe them? His wealth and his work in the black community was both his sword and his shield against exposure, and that allowed him to continue his criminal rampage.

His conviction wasn’t overturned because evidence now exonerates him. It’s being overturned because he admitted he bought drugs to give to women he wanted to have sex with, in a civil trial, and his admission was used against him in his criminal trial. There is no question of his guilt.

It was said that Ted Bundy was a “nice guy”, friendly and helpful to women too. Are all of his kind acts negated by the fact that he raped and murdered women?

 

[NightFox]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

So if a minor consents to sex with an adult, you're okay with that too? Because the legal concept of diminished capacity is the same underlying theory at play in this case. What you're claiming is that these women consented to be drugged and then consented to allow their attacker to do whatever the he wants to them while they're high, Cosby's 60 accusers disagree with your contention. It's also curious that the fact Cosby (by his own admission) had to give his victims drugs BEFORE having sex with them doesn't raise any alarm bells with you at all.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED CONSENT, never has, never will and thank God for it.

I'm sure glad the law protects people from those that think like you do, otherwise sexual predation would be even more rampant than it is now.

How the fuck did you get to that stupid conclusion?
Because I don't think a woman should be able to convict a man of rape because she was inebriated, and either don't remember what happened or has regrets - that means I am okay with a child predator??
I have seen you around, I wasn't aware you were this ridiculous??

It’s the SAME PRINCIPLE, a child cannot consent the same way an intoxicated person cannot consent.

What don’t you understand? You’re trying to place the blame on the victim because you seem to think “they had it coming” due to their mental state.

I’ve seen you around too and I WAS aware that you were this ridiculous.

 

[Correll]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

You need to google the word “coincidence”

And was exchanging favors for sex with these women over decades, decades before that.


FUnny how you left that out of the timeline....


View attachment 508643

Again you need to Google the word coincidence

Cosby was raping women both before and after the 2004 speech
He was not exchanging favors for sex
He was luring women to his home by promising to help with their careers. He then drugged them and raped them.
That is not an exchange

He did not drug them. You are a lying whore.

Seriously, WTF is wrong with you? Yes, he drugged them. He gave them quaaludes, admitted it under oath. Those are a drug, dumbass.

Why Bill Cosby Admitted to Getting Drugs to Have Sex With Women

Experts address how someone with access to the best legal advice could have made such an explosive admission

time.com

If I give you a beer, and then you drink it, did I drug you, you brainless moron?

You are soo lost to confirmation bias, you can't read what other people are writing.

 

[Correll]

In 2004 Bill Cosby gave a scathing speech condemning much of what is going on in Black culture. Bill pointed to such tings as the drop out of school rate in the Black community, the higher level of violence in the Black culture, the lack of pride in how they present themselves, the higher use of drugs and the higher rate of fatherless homes, etc. to communicate that the majority of suffering and pain within the Black culture is self inflicted. You can blame whitey all day, and there may even be some truth to those feelings, but at the end of the day Black homes within the Black community are not going to escape such things as poverty with a fatherless rate of about 70%. It does not even work for whites.

Bill Cosby's Famous "Pound Cake" Speech, Annotated

A decade ago Cosby gave a speech excoriating poor blacks for not living up to the promise of the civil rights movement. Here's a look back based on what we know now.

www.buzzfeednews.com

Naturally, there was a backlash from the Left like the article above. The response from the Left was not to consider if Bill had any good points at all. No, instead the article above simply dismisses every point Bill made,. especially on some statistics he may have had wrong, and dismisses Bill as a Black and even dismisses him as a human being by pointing to him doing jail time for drugging women and then molesting them. Therefore, Bill should just drop off the face of the earth and die because of his past sins. Everything he ever said and did has now been negated for all eternity, even the money he had generously given to the Black community to help.


What I don't know, however, is if the reason why Bill is in jail is because of that Pound Cake speech. Is the Left so diabolical, so evil, that they engage in efforts to destroy people like Bill who oppose them publicly? Am I saying Bill is innocent? No. Am I saying he is guilty? No. What I am saying is that I think he opened himself as a target, and as such, it could be that the Left will either find something in a person's past that will condemn them, or if they can't find anything, will make it up. And as Bill was recently released from jail, it appears those who were out to get him went about it in an unlawful way.

You’re damn Skippy that every good thing Bill Cosby ever said or did in his entire life is negated by the fact that as he was becoming rich and famous and a leader within the black community, he was using his wealth, his fame and his “good guy” image to attract, lure, drug and rape women that he met along the way.

More than 60 women have come forward to say Cosby drugged and raped them. Going back to his “I Spy” days.

Many said nothing because who would believe them? His wealth and his work in the black community was both his sword and his shield against exposure, and that allowed him to continue his criminal rampage.

His conviction wasn’t overturned because evidence now exonerates him. It’s being overturned because he admitted he bought drugs to give to women he wanted to have sex with, in a civil trial, and his admission was used against him in his criminal trial. There is no question of his guilt.

It was said that Ted Bundy was a “nice guy”, friendly and helpful to women too. Are all of his kind acts negated by the fact that he raped and murdered women?

When you hand someone drugs and they willingly take them, you have not "drugged them", they "drugged themselves".

That you need to play stupid on this, shows that you know you are in the wrong.

 

[Blues Man]

I don’t know if Cosby is guilty or innocent but what is interesting, is anyone of renowned who speaks out against the establishment often ends up accused, imprisoned, or suicided. Julian Assange being a very good example. There certainly seems to be a pattern here that goes back centuries.

yeah it was a conspiracy that all those women accused Cosby of the same thing

nah it’s only a conspiracy when groups of women accuse dems, their donors and their sheep of the same thing

sexual assault is not a political issue.

Cosby had no political clout

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

So if a minor consents to sex with an adult, you're okay with that too? Because the legal concept of diminished capacity is the same underlying theory at play in this case. What you're claiming is that these women consented to be drugged and then consented to allow their attacker to do whatever the he wants to them while they're high, Cosby's 60 accusers disagree with your contention. It's also curious that the fact Cosby (by his own admission) had to give his victims drugs BEFORE having sex with them doesn't raise any alarm bells with you at all.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED CONSENT, never has, never will and thank God for it.

I'm sure glad the law protects people from those that think like you do, otherwise sexual predation would be even more rampant than it is now.

How the fuck did you get to that stupid conclusion?
Because I don't think a woman should be able to convict a man of rape because she was inebriated, and either don't remember what happened or has regrets - that means I am okay with a child predator??
I have seen you around, I wasn't aware you were this ridiculous??

So, if you find a woman who is passed out drunk and you take her clothes off and have sex with her

That is her problem

Yeah... cause that is exactly what I said...

 

[Correll]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

So if a minor consents to sex with an adult, you're okay with that too? Because the legal concept of diminished capacity is the same underlying theory at play in this case. What you're claiming is that these women consented to be drugged and then consented to allow their attacker to do whatever the he wants to them while they're high, Cosby's 60 accusers disagree with your contention. It's also curious that the fact Cosby (by his own admission) had to give his victims drugs BEFORE having sex with them doesn't raise any alarm bells with you at all.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED CONSENT, never has, never will and thank God for it.

I'm sure glad the law protects people from those that think like you do, otherwise sexual predation would be even more rampant than it is now.

How the fuck did you get to that stupid conclusion?
Because I don't think a woman should be able to convict a man of rape because she was inebriated, and either don't remember what happened or has regrets - that means I am okay with a child predator??
I have seen you around, I wasn't aware you were this ridiculous??

So, if you find a woman who is passed out drunk and you take her clothes off and have sex with her

That is her problem

Yeah... cause that is exactly what I said...

Liberals love to "rephrase" what you said and then address that.


Except, when they "rephrase it" they completely change the meaning.


THey are assholes like that.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Sure. It just happened to happen only AFTER he spoke out and became the enemy of the Left.

Are you really that stupid?

Cosby made that speech in 2004
He was arrested in 2017

He was sued by Constand in 2005 and that’s where this all started because that’s when he made his confessions under oath.

13 years and some 35 accusers later…… apparently the forces of the left decided it was time to really get serious about persecuting him, really?

I have to laugh at the role reversal going on here, it’s normally conservatives complaining about left wingers excusing the misdeeds of criminals because the system is “unfair to them”, here we have conservatives engaging in the same exact nonsense in defense of a confessed SEXUAL PREDATOR no less, who’d of thunk that?

I'm just telling the truth. He was a sexual HARASSER, not a rapist.

He gave drugs to women, for them to take, either for their personal enjoyment or to make their act of prostitution easier to deal with.

OIC, blame the victims, that’s the ticket, never mind the fact that he was convicted by a jury of his peers.

The cases I looked at, the women knew what they were getting into, and took the drugs willing, whether just as a standard, "get high and screw" move, or to help with the act of prostitution they were doing.


Bill Cosby was a sexual harasser, in hollywood using his power to exchange favors for sex, from willing want a be actresses.


That is very sleazy and yes, predatory. It is not rape.


The women would have cases for sexual harassment suits against him, and/or the studios, imo.

BUt the rape charge is based on a lie, ie misrepresenting his words, of "giving drugs" to mean "drugging".

He wasn’t convicted of rape, he was convicted of SEXUAL ASSAULT meaning (in this case) inflicting sexual contact on a person that is incapable of giving consent, you know like a person that has been DRUGGED.

The 60 or so women that have accused him are uniformly saying that he initiated sexual contact after he had drugged them at which point they’re legally incapable of giving consent.

What you’re attempting to claim is that all 60 consented to being drugged and sexually assaulted, which is functionally the same thing as claiming it’s consensual if a severely mentally handicapped person that doesn’t understand what’s going on consents to sexual contact, in both cases it’s illegal sexual contact.

No.
I don't care what the law is. The law can even say it is sexual assault, but it isn't.
If a woman is partying with someone, KNOWING full well sex is highly likely to occur, STAYS THERE..and then gets inebriated and is either drunk or high - she doesn't get to come back and say she was assaulted because she can't remember if, at the moment, she gave consent or not.
There have been FAAAAAR too many innocent men arrested due to a vindictive female getting him back for some unrelated occurence by claiming this.
FFS - 3/4 of the population of men are technically sexual predators if this were true.

You don’t care what the law is? What do you prefer to the law? we just take the accused’s word for it and skip due process? Does that victim have any rights in your world?

Granted laws are just opinions on a piece of paper, however in this case the law is clearly designed to protect people with diminished capacity from sexual predation and I can only think of one group that would disagree with such laws, namely SEXUAL PREDATORS.

Nope. I have a wonderful daughter. Who has grown to become an awesome adult, mother and wife.
If she went to a party with a man, drank with the man, went back to his apartment...ALONE... drank more... wakes up a few hours later nude and wants the man arrested?? I would not agree with her.
You can't compare that with ACTUAL rape and assault in which a man outright rapes or sexually assaults a women under her objection.
People get drunk, they get high. They do things when they are drunk, they may agree to do things they wouldn't do sober - but that doesn't mean you get to put the other person in jail simply because you don't remember.
I had a good friend of mind get his career and reputation ruined by a stripper he went out with.
After the bar closed they went to his apartment where she drank like a fish and took drugs. They had sex. Two days later the cops showed up at his door and arrested him. She claimed he raped her by having sex with her while she was passed out. He says that is not what happened at all. In reality, he ended up getting saved by a few texts she sent him the following days. She wanted to pursue a relationship, he didn't and she got all pissed off and called the cops.
If not for those texts - he would have spent time in jail, maybe even years.

So if a minor consents to sex with an adult, you're okay with that too? Because the legal concept of diminished capacity is the same underlying theory at play in this case. What you're claiming is that these women consented to be drugged and then consented to allow their attacker to do whatever the he wants to them while they're high, Cosby's 60 accusers disagree with your contention. It's also curious that the fact Cosby (by his own admission) had to give his victims drugs BEFORE having sex with them doesn't raise any alarm bells with you at all.

DIMINISHED CAPACITY DOES NOT EQUAL IMPLIED CONSENT, never has, never will and thank God for it.

I'm sure glad the law protects people from those that think like you do, otherwise sexual predation would be even more rampant than it is now.

How the fuck did you get to that stupid conclusion?
Because I don't think a woman should be able to convict a man of rape because she was inebriated, and either don't remember what happened or has regrets - that means I am okay with a child predator??
I have seen you around, I wasn't aware you were this ridiculous??

It’s the SAME PRINCIPLE, a child cannot consent the same way an intoxicated person cannot consent.

What don’t you understand? You’re trying to place the blame on the victim because you seem to think “they had it coming” due to their mental state.

I’ve seen you around too and I WAS aware that you were this ridiculous.

Again, like someone else said, if you have to play dumb and ignore what is said to you in order to maintain a belief - then you should be smart enough to know that belief is a fail.
So I will make it real simple...
1) A sober man sees a well intoxicated woman who obviously is very compromised by her condition. But seeks to use that condition in his favor and talks her into his car where he gives her more alcohol/drugs while maintaining his own sober'ish state. And has sex with her either as passed out or unable to stop him due to her extreme drunken state..... THAT is rape.
2) A sober man and sober women -OR - two adults both pretty well lit up - BOTH - decide to go off alone. They BOTH drink some more, BOTH get pretty drunk and they have sex.... THAT is not rape or assault. Even if she tries to claim she didn't give consent, because (thank God) men have luckily gotten off of a conviction due to video that existed showing the women was more than flirtatious. And therefore consent was given.
It is completely wrong and fucked up beyond all reason to have a condition where a woman can claim she was raped because either she don't remember giving consent or doesn't want anyone to know she did. And a man goes to prison for perhaps years.