Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Then definitely no! TANSTAAFL.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bill Cosby found guilty
- Thread starter Riders
- Start date
He didn't offer me a free lunch....just candy.
Tom, let me get clear about this,
Suppose a man borrows money from you, then refuses to pay it back. Further suppose he comes begging again, you lend him money again, and he again refuses to pay you back. Can we agree you would be fool to have lent the money to him the second time around? But even if you are indeed a fool, does that mean in your mind that you no longer have any claim to the money you lent him the second time around? And if you no longer have claim to that money, do you still have claim to the money you lent him the first time around -- or is your claim to the first money negated by your folly in lending to him a second time?
In a similar manner, suppose you visit a man in his home and he rapes you. Then suppose sometime afterwards you visit him again and he rapes you again. In your way of thinking is that second rape not rape because you were foolish enough to visit him knowing what had happened before? In other words, does a person's folly in helping to bring about a crime against them negate the crime against them? And if it does, does it also negate the first crime against them?
As for myself, I do not think whether a crime is a crime is determined in any measure by the victims' folly in helping or facilitating bringing it about. At most it would be a mitigating factor in sentencing -- but even there, it is a dangerous principle that could potentially overturn our whole concept of justice.
To penalize the victim for being foolish -- where do you stop? Do you then begin penalizing mentally incompetent people for being mentally incompetent? And if not, why not?
Once you have established the principle that a victims' folly can negate a crime, what logically can stop you from negating any sort of crime for any infirmity of a victim that helped to bring about the crime? Why not just say, "Let's just return to Mike Pences' paradise -- the 1950s -- and let every rapist off the hook if the woman was foolish enough to wear a pretty enough dress?
Suppose a man borrows money from you, then refuses to pay it back. Further suppose he comes begging again, you lend him money again, and he again refuses to pay you back. Can we agree you would be fool to have lent the money to him the second time around? But even if you are indeed a fool, does that mean in your mind that you no longer have any claim to the money you lent him the second time around? And if you no longer have claim to that money, do you still have claim to the money you lent him the first time around -- or is your claim to the first money negated by your folly in lending to him a second time?
In a similar manner, suppose you visit a man in his home and he rapes you. Then suppose sometime afterwards you visit him again and he rapes you again. In your way of thinking is that second rape not rape because you were foolish enough to visit him knowing what had happened before? In other words, does a person's folly in helping to bring about a crime against them negate the crime against them? And if it does, does it also negate the first crime against them?
As for myself, I do not think whether a crime is a crime is determined in any measure by the victims' folly in helping or facilitating bringing it about. At most it would be a mitigating factor in sentencing -- but even there, it is a dangerous principle that could potentially overturn our whole concept of justice.
To penalize the victim for being foolish -- where do you stop? Do you then begin penalizing mentally incompetent people for being mentally incompetent? And if not, why not?
Once you have established the principle that a victims' folly can negate a crime, what logically can stop you from negating any sort of crime for any infirmity of a victim that helped to bring about the crime? Why not just say, "Let's just return to Mike Pences' paradise -- the 1950s -- and let every rapist off the hook if the woman was foolish enough to wear a pretty enough dress?
Quite the contrary.
I'm not a sleazebag, like Constand.
Don't come over and ask for pills. I don't have any. Your virtue is safe with me.
Well, I might make an exception for @Sunstone.
I've made enough exceptions for @Revoltingest. I'm over that boy.
Tom
Is it a crime when women decide to have sex?
Because that's what I am seeing here. Constand decided to boink Cosby.
Cosby is on trial because he is a guy, and being black doesn't get you a freebie when you're as successful as he is.
Constand made the decision. Cosby could have had any number of women. Constand wanted it to be her. And it was.
Along with a zillion others.
Tom
Judging from your comments, Tom, I think we misunderstand each other now to the point that I'm going to give up on this discussion. Nothing personal.
I get similar responses from "pro-life" Christians. And "patriots" who like a the lack of democracy in the election system.
Have a nice day.
Tom
I didn't mean it that way at all Tom. Just that I can't make any more progress towards understanding you than I have, and I don't feel you're making any more progress towards understanding me than you have. These things happen. When they do, what's the point of arguing with each other?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Touche!
Here's where I think we differ.
I believe that Constand went to Cosby's place planning to have sex.
I find that pretty trashy behavior, but it's nothing new.
The fact that she had to drug herself first, and Cosby went ahead with it anyway, is totally disgusting to me.
But she picked it.
Tom
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Once you fall unconscious, consent is no longer an option. I'm not sure why you'd think it is.
Not normal at all, whether you're prude or not. It's called rape and rapists do it.
I seriously cannot figure out why you're trying to divide this in the way you are, especially after I made it crystal clear that it's irrelevant whether the victim is a man or a woman or anything or anyone else. I'd be saying the exact same thing if the victim were a man.
A person cannot decide anything while unconscious. That is the ENTIRE point.
This isn't a case of two people having consensual (and conscious) sex and then one person later wishing they hadn't and crying rape. This is a case of a fully conscious man having sex with an unconscious woman. I have no idea why you think it matters if she "drugged herself" or not. Here in Canada, the Supreme Court has ruled that unconscious people cannot consent to sexual activity.
American legal code says the following:
"§920. Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally
(a) Rape.-Any person subject to this chapter who commits a sexual act upon another person by-
(1) using unlawful force against that other person;
(2) using force causing or likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm to any person;
(3) threatening or placing that other person in fear that any person will be subjected to death, grievous bodily harm, or kidnapping;
(4) first rendering that other person unconscious; or
(5) administering to that other person by force or threat of force, or without the knowledge or consent of that person, a drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance and thereby substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct;
is guilty of rape and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.
(b) Sexual Assault.-Any person subject to this chapter who-
(1) commits a sexual act upon another person by-
(A) threatening or placing that other person in fear;
(B) causing bodily harm to that other person;
(C) making a fraudulent representation that the sexual act serves a professional purpose; or
(D) inducing a belief by any artifice, pretense, or concealment that the person is another person;
(2) commits a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring; or
(3) commits a sexual act upon another person when the other person is incapable of consenting to the sexual act due to-
(A) impairment by any drug, intoxicant, or other similar substance, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person; or
(B) a mental disease or defect, or physical disability, and that condition is known or reasonably should be known by the person;
is guilty of sexual assault and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
[USC10] 10 USC 920: Art. 120. Rape and sexual assault generally
It sure sounds like a crime to me, and to the jury who convicted Cosby.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Can you explain what you think rape is then?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
According to a jury of Cosby's peers, it makes him a sexual assaulter. A criminal.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
No, it's you. She didn't "put out" she fell unconscious and Cosby has sex with her unconscious body.
The "dude" is on trial for drugging and having sex with an unconscious woman. That is a crime in Canada and the US.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
You missed this part:
commits a sexual act upon another person when the person knows or reasonably should know that the other person is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware that the sexual act is occurring; or
Trackdayguy
Speed doesn't kill, it's hitting the wall
Is he guilty? If he is he doesn't seem a very broken man nor does he appear repentant. If he isn't then he's being falsely accused. I think I'll put it the dont know box. Yes, he may have used his position to get his way, but there's also a lot of men hating women out there. Again for me it goes in the dont know box.
Forcing someone to have sex.
Cosby didn't do that, as far as I can see. Constand went there to trade sex for a career boost.
Tom
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Nobody here, besides yourself, has suggested this.