Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2015 15:20:11 GMT -5
morally you don't advantage of passed out Nowhere have I supported or accepted Cosby's actions, I actually despise them but there is so much sanctimonious shyte going on in here it needs to be called out.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 11, 2015 16:40:08 GMT -5
This is getting silly and you are being pedantic. Cosby, did not admit to rape, he admitted to using 'substances' to loosen his 'ladies' resistance. Immoral and nasty as that maybe is, it is not admitting to rape, that is simply your take on it. You are being disingenuous. I expect this from the likes of redleg, I do not expect it from you. Get back to me when Cosby says "I raped so and so..." and I will apologise to you, till then, quit being a redleg Mk2. He doesn't have to say that, specifically, to admit to the crime. He said he gave women drugs and had sex with them. There's no world where that's not rape. That's what aboutwell didn't understand. If I said, "I stuck a knife in that fellow's heart" then I have said "I murdered him" without using those exact words, since the effect of sticking a knife in someone's heart is that they die and I caused it. If you think it's okay to drug women for the purpose of having sex with them just say that. Some men, including Cosby, apparently feel that's okay. But if you don't believe this then I fail to see how you can defend aboutwell's position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2015 17:21:59 GMT -5
This is getting silly and you are being pedantic. Cosby, did not admit to rape, he admitted to using 'substances' to loosen his 'ladies' resistance. Immoral and nasty as that maybe is, it is not admitting to rape, that is simply your take on it. You are being disingenuous. I expect this from the likes of redleg, I do not expect it from you. Get back to me when Cosby says "I raped so and so..." and I will apologise to you, till then, quit being a redleg Mk2. He doesn't have to say that, specifically, to admit to the crime. He said he gave women drugs and had sex with them. There's no world where that's not rape. Nope he did not say he raped anyone. You are the one saying that he raped people, in your world maybe, in the real world it is not so clear cut. That's what aboutwell didn't understand. If I said, "I stuck a knife in that fellow's heart" then I have said "I murdered him" without using those exact words, since the effect of sticking a knife in someone's heart is that they die and I caused it. Pedantic claptrap! I suggest you don't go into the legal profession. If you think it's okay to drug women for the purpose of having sex with them just say that. Some men, including Cosby, apparently feel that's okay. But if you don't believe this then I fail to see how you can defend aboutwell's position. No don't think it's okay to drug people for the purpose of having sex with them, nor have I implied that, you are being dishonest in suggesting that, do to attempt to attribute false positions to me. If you do not understand my position fine, just don't apply own your false logic to me and judge me by it..
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 11, 2015 19:10:44 GMT -5
Nope he did not say he raped anyone. You are the one saying that he raped people, in your world maybe, in the real world it is not so clear cut. Perhaps not to you. To me, it is. No don't think it's okay to drug people for the purpose of having sex with them, nor have I implied that, you are being dishonest in suggesting that, do to attempt to attribute false positions to me. If you do not understand my position fine, just don't apply own your false logic to me and judge me by it.. Please calm down. (1) I replied to your earlier post without seeing your denial (which was on a different page) that was in your reply to Ravenchamp's post. (2) Even then I did not attribute any position to you. I asked you to do what you did: clarify your position. We're going to disagree about this. Drugging a woman to have sex with her is rape to me. And to a lot of people. By saying he did this, to me, Cosby said he committed rape. The rat bastard belongs in prison but the sad thing is, he'll never see the inside of a prison cell because all his victims waited too long. At least he'll die hated, and hopefully he understands that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2015 19:40:04 GMT -5
Sadly Bill Cosby's reputation is in the gutter. No excuse for him drugging women.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 11, 2015 22:43:11 GMT -5
This really is pretty simple: rape or not, a real man doesn't need alcohol or drugs to get a woman into bed. Apparently Cosby did, and people who make excuses for him, are in danger of losing their 'man card' right along with Cosby.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 12, 2015 0:17:42 GMT -5
if the female says NO, and you force it, it's rape Best I can tell... none of these women told him no...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 12, 2015 0:20:28 GMT -5
morally you don't advantage of passed out Morally, you don't take advantage of not passed out either... I always preferred mine as active as possible... bad enough when they were conscious and not very active...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 12, 2015 0:24:43 GMT -5
This is getting silly and you are being pedantic. Cosby, did not admit to rape, he admitted to using 'substances' to loosen his 'ladies' resistance. Immoral and nasty as that maybe is, it is not admitting to rape, that is simply your take on it. You are being disingenuous. I expect this from the likes of redleg, I do not expect it from you. Get back to me when Cosby says "I raped so and so..." and I will apologise to you, till then, quit being a redleg Mk2. He doesn't have to say that, specifically, to admit to the crime. He said he gave women drugs and had sex with them. There's no world where that's not rape. That's what aboutwell didn't understand. If I said, "I stuck a knife in that fellow's heart" then I have said "I murdered him" without using those exact words, since the effect of sticking a knife in someone's heart is that they die and I caused it. If you think it's okay to drug women for the purpose of having sex with them just say that. Some men, including Cosby, apparently feel that's okay. But if you don't believe this then I fail to see how you can defend aboutwell's position. But I did understand it... does that also apply to any medicine/drug that makes someone feel better... better enough to have sexual relations?... you know women are known to have headaches at the worst of times for men...
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 12, 2015 0:29:59 GMT -5
This really is pretty simple: rape or not, a real man doesn't need alcohol or drugs to get a woman into bed. Apparently Cosby did, and people who make excuses for him, are in danger of losing their 'man card' right along with Cosby. I can say amen to that one... it's always better when both are fully conscious and aware of what's going on... the proof is in the return trip...
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 12, 2015 10:52:18 GMT -5
But I did understand it... does that also apply to any medicine/drug that makes someone feel better... better enough to have sexual relations?... you know women are known to have headaches at the worst of times for men... You wrote like you didn't understand it. Any time a person, as Cosby did numerous times, gives another person a drug without their consent, that's battery. If he 1 has sex with her, that's rape. A person who admits to doing that is a rapist. Alcohol has been mentioned on this thread, but it largely isn't relevant to Cosby - he used other drugs. He ADMITTED to using Quaalude. 1I'm using "he" because a man who has passed out from drugs can't normally achieve or sustain an erection. It would therefore be very difficult for a woman to use this technique.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 12:25:09 GMT -5
But I did understand it... does that also apply to any medicine/drug that makes someone feel better... better enough to have sexual relations?... you know women are known to have headaches at the worst of times for men... You wrote like you didn't understand it. Any time a person, as Cosby did numerous times, gives another person a drug without their consent, that's battery. If he 1 has sex with her, that's rape. A person who admits to doing that is a rapist. Alcohol has been mentioned on this thread, but it largely isn't relevant to Cosby - he used other drugs. He ADMITTED to using Quaalude. 1I'm using "he" because a man who has passed out from drugs can't normally achieve or sustain an erection. It would therefore be very difficult for a woman to use this technique.A woman wouldn't have to EY, all she would have to do is to is ply a man with sufficient alcohol to loosen up his inhibitions (call them morality if you like) and then apply her charms, that method would work 9 times out of 10 and has been employed very succesfully by them for millennia, and no, I wouldn't call that 'rape' either. Perhaps we need another degree of rape for these 'grey' cases, not everything is as black and white as many on here seem to believe and accept.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2015 12:45:51 GMT -5
Perhaps we need another degree of rape for these 'grey' cases, not everything is as black and white as many on here seem to believe and accept. When I first heard this story, I was skeptical. Why? Because Cosby has deep pockets, thus is a tempting target for extortion. And, because the information that was available was so diametrically opposed to everything Cosby's public facade stood for. However, that went out the window when he admitted to drugging women to get them into bed. There's nothing 'grey' about this... Not even of the 50 Shades variety. You might have been able to make this argument if the women he was with knowingly took the drugs. But that is also apparently not the case.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 13:00:44 GMT -5
Perhaps we need another degree of rape for these 'grey' cases, not everything is as black and white as many on here seem to believe and accept. When I first heard this story, I was skeptical. Why? Because Cosby has deep pockets, thus is a tempting target for extortion. And, because the information that was available was so diametrically opposed to everything Cosby's public facade stood for. However, that went out the window when he admitted to drugging women to get them into bed. There's nothing 'grey' about this... Not even of the 50 Shades variety. You might have been able to make this argument if the women he was with knowingly took the drugs. But that is also apparently not the case. This is the greyest area of the whole case. Are you prepared to tell me that none of the 25 rapees had any inkling of what was going on, none of them were not trying to 'score' with a 'star', none of them have jumped onto the bandwagon for a possible payout? I agree that Cosby has acted despicably and most of the cases most probably are rape, would you agree that maybe just one of them might not be?
|
|
|
Bill Cosby
Jul 12, 2015 13:17:52 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2015 13:17:52 GMT -5
When I first heard this story, I was skeptical. Why? Because Cosby has deep pockets, thus is a tempting target for extortion. And, because the information that was available was so diametrically opposed to everything Cosby's public facade stood for. However, that went out the window when he admitted to drugging women to get them into bed. There's nothing 'grey' about this... Not even of the 50 Shades variety. You might have been able to make this argument if the women he was with knowingly took the drugs. But that is also apparently not the case. This is the greyest area of the whole case. Are you prepared to tell me that none of the 25 rapees had any inkling of what was going on, none of them were not trying to 'score' with a 'star', none of them have jumped onto the bandwagon for a possible payout? I agree that Cosby has acted despicably and most of the cases most probably are rape, would you agree that maybe just one of them might not be? IF it turns out that some number of the cases turn out to be extortion attempts, those women ought to suffer the consequences of their actions. However, I find this possibility HIGHLY unlikely at this point, as there is no longer much, if anything, to gain. There is apparently no criminal case to be made because of various statutes of limitations. There's also no blackmail secrets to keep at this point, as Cosby's reputation is now done. Civil cases may be possible, but I would imagine pay-outs would be rather paltry, due to the age of the allegations. But, in terms of Cosby himself, this behavior is so blatantly vile, no, it really doesn't matter to me if a few of them are lying. The fact that he has behaved this way opened him up to people piling on. He has no one to blame but himself for that.
|
|
|
Bill Cosby
Jul 12, 2015 13:30:09 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2015 13:30:09 GMT -5
As for the question as to whether some of the women may have been semi-willing participants, this is also irrelevant. Why? Because Cosby's intent was still rape.
|
|
|
Post by aboutwell on Jul 12, 2015 13:45:56 GMT -5
As for the question as to whether some of the women may have been semi-willing participants, this is also irrelevant. Why? Because Cosby's intent was still rape. Cosby's intent wasn't rape... his intent was sex... just ask Paula Jones... when a woman goes to a man's hotel room... his apartment... or his home... she should be prepared to accept/expect most anything... and if she accepts a drink of any kind there... she has opened to the door voluntarily...
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2015 14:08:38 GMT -5
As for the question as to whether some of the women may have been semi-willing participants, this is also irrelevant. Why? Because Cosby's intent was still rape. Cosby's intent wasn't rape... his intent was sex... just ask Paula Jones... when a woman goes to a man's hotel room... his apartment... or his home... she should be prepared to accept/expect most anything... and if she accepts a drink of any kind there... she has opened to the door voluntarily... You are, simply, wrong. If you are intentionally incapacitating someone prior to sex, your intent is rape. And if that's the way you operate, as far as I'm concerned you are a rapist, and not a man.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 12, 2015 15:17:34 GMT -5
As for the question as to whether some of the women may have been semi-willing participants, this is also irrelevant. Why? Because Cosby's intent was still rape. Cosby's intent wasn't rape... his intent was sex... just ask Paula Jones... when a woman goes to a man's hotel room... his apartment... or his home... she should be prepared to accept/expect most anything... and if she accepts a drink of any kind there... she has opened to the door voluntarily... This attitude is why rape was so difficult to prosecute for so long. You are blaming the victim, and that is dead wrong. Or should a woman bring a biochemist and a portable laboratory with her when she goes out, so that she can test anything a man might offer her? Seriously, did you actually think about what you typed here at all?
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2015 16:09:23 GMT -5
Cosby's intent wasn't rape... his intent was sex... just ask Paula Jones... when a woman goes to a man's hotel room... his apartment... or his home... she should be prepared to accept/expect most anything... and if she accepts a drink of any kind there... she has opened to the door voluntarily... This attitude is why rape was so difficult to prosecute for so long. You are blaming the victim, and that is dead wrong. Or should a woman bring a biochemist and a portable laboratory with her when she goes out, so that she can test anything a man might offer her? Seriously, did you actually think about what you typed here at all? You know the thing that really is the most galling for me? Not only is Cosby's behavior criminal... it's just ignorant. I gave up trying to figure out why people have certain kinks a LONG time ago; and the simple truth is, no matter how sick and twisted you are, there are people out there who share your kinks and will help you fulfill all your wildest fantasies. Some of them may charge you a lot of money for it, but there's NEVER a need to satisfy a kink with an unwilling partner. Especially for someone who has the resources and fame that Cosby does. Within the BDSM community, there is a practice called 'consensual non-consent.' It's a common sort of arrangement that involves a submissive partner that gets off on not being in control, or being 'man-handled.' The way it works is the dominant partner and the submissive partner sit down and discuss and agree to what's going to happen in advance. There will be a thorough discussion regarding the submissive partner's limits and what both partners expect from each other. Typically there will also be an agreed to 'safe word' that the submissive partner can use instead of 'no' if she's the sort of woman for whom 'no' means 'yes' (and there are a shocking number of women who are wired that way). Provided the dominant and submissive play within the agreed upon framework, everyone goes home happy (or at least without the right to complain). And just to be totally clear, because I know there are a couple of posters here who will probably try to twist this into some sort of excuse for Cosby: the fact that these things happen FURTHER CONDEMNS Cosby. Why? Because there actually is a correct way for Cosby to drug a woman and suck on her toes while she's unconscious, and instead he decided to break the law. THIS is why I say rape was Cosby's intent - the ' mens rea' - and that makes all the excuses that maybe one or two or half, or 90% of Cosby's victims actually kinda-sorta-mighta wanted to be treated this way irrelevant and shameful for the posters who put those notions forward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 18:02:57 GMT -5
This attitude is why rape was so difficult to prosecute for so long. You are blaming the victim, and that is dead wrong. Or should a woman bring a biochemist and a portable laboratory with her when she goes out, so that she can test anything a man might offer her? Seriously, did you actually think about what you typed here at all? You know the thing that really is the most galling for me? Not only is Cosby's behavior criminal... it's just ignorant. I gave up trying to figure out why people have certain kinks a LONG time ago; and the simple truth is, no matter how sick and twisted you are, there are people out there who share your kinks and will help you fulfill all your wildest fantasies. Some of them may charge you a lot of money for it, but there's NEVER a need to satisfy a kink with an unwilling partner. Especially for someone who has the resources and fame that Cosby does. Within the BDSM community, there is a practice called 'consensual non-consent.' It's a common sort of arrangement that involves a submissive partner that gets off on not being in control, or being 'man-handled.' The way it works is the dominant partner and the submissive partner sit down and discuss and agree to what's going to happen in advance. There will be a thorough discussion regarding the submissive partner's limits and what both partners expect from each other. Typically there will also be an agreed to 'safe word' that the submissive partner can use instead of 'no' if she's the sort of woman for whom 'no' means 'yes' (and there are a shocking number of women who are wired that way). Provided the dominant and submissive play within the agreed upon framework, everyone goes home happy (or at least without the right to complain). And just to be totally clear, because I know there are a couple of posters here who will probably try to twist this into some sort of excuse for Cosby: the fact that these things happen FURTHER CONDEMNS Cosby. Why? Because there actually is a correct way for Cosby to drug a woman and suck on her toes while she's unconscious, and instead he decided to break the law. This is why I say rape was Cosby's intent - the 'mens rea' - and that makes all the excuses that maybe one or two or half, or 90% of Cosby's victims actually kinda-sorta-mighta wanted to be treated this way irrelevant and shameful for the posters who put those notions forward. You were doing fine until you had to post the last paragraph. A. My comments were not excuses, they were questions/suggestions offered up for debate. B. You are not in a position to charge others with shame, that last paragraph is, quite simply, the type of uttering one would expect from a sanctimonious bigot, and there are a few of those on this thread too.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2015 18:21:21 GMT -5
You know the thing that really is the most galling for me? Not only is Cosby's behavior criminal... it's just ignorant. I gave up trying to figure out why people have certain kinks a LONG time ago; and the simple truth is, no matter how sick and twisted you are, there are people out there who share your kinks and will help you fulfill all your wildest fantasies. Some of them may charge you a lot of money for it, but there's NEVER a need to satisfy a kink with an unwilling partner. Especially for someone who has the resources and fame that Cosby does. Within the BDSM community, there is a practice called 'consensual non-consent.' It's a common sort of arrangement that involves a submissive partner that gets off on not being in control, or being 'man-handled.' The way it works is the dominant partner and the submissive partner sit down and discuss and agree to what's going to happen in advance. There will be a thorough discussion regarding the submissive partner's limits and what both partners expect from each other. Typically there will also be an agreed to 'safe word' that the submissive partner can use instead of 'no' if she's the sort of woman for whom 'no' means 'yes' (and there are a shocking number of women who are wired that way). Provided the dominant and submissive play within the agreed upon framework, everyone goes home happy (or at least without the right to complain). And just to be totally clear, because I know there are a couple of posters here who will probably try to twist this into some sort of excuse for Cosby: the fact that these things happen FURTHER CONDEMNS Cosby. Why? Because there actually is a correct way for Cosby to drug a woman and suck on her toes while she's unconscious, and instead he decided to break the law. This is why I say rape was Cosby's intent - the 'mens rea' - and that makes all the excuses that maybe one or two or half, or 90% of Cosby's victims actually kinda-sorta-mighta wanted to be treated this way irrelevant and shameful for the posters who put those notions forward. You were doing fine until you had to post the last paragraph. A. My comments were not excuses, they were questions/suggestions offered up for debate. B. You are not in a position to charge others with shame, that last paragraph is, quite simply, the type of uttering one would expect from a sanctimonious bigot, and there are a few of those on this thread too. Oh yeah. I forgot. You lack the ability to think beyond mindless name calling. My bad.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2015 18:33:04 GMT -5
You were doing fine until you had to post the last paragraph. A. My comments were not excuses, they were questions/suggestions offered up for debate. B. You are not in a position to charge others with shame, that last paragraph is, quite simply, the type of uttering one would expect from a sanctimonious bigot, and there are a few of those on this thread too. Oh yeah. I forgot. You lack the ability to think beyond mindless name calling. My bad. Your ad hominem attack shows that you too "lack the ability to think beyond mindless name calling" with your calling people "shameful". It cuts both ways dude.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on Jul 12, 2015 18:52:54 GMT -5
Take it easy, please. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Ranger John on Jul 12, 2015 20:50:26 GMT -5
Oh yeah. I forgot. You lack the ability to think beyond mindless name calling. My bad. Your ad hominem attack shows that you too "lack the ability to think beyond mindless name calling" with your calling people "shameful". It cuts both ways dude. Not really. I explained what Cosby's problem was, and you called me a bigot. I suppose you're right, in that I REALLY don't much like rapists, or people who make excuses for them. And yes, rape and making excuses for rape is shameful. At least it is to real men.
|
|