The Bill Cosby Situation

  • Thread starter Liquid
  • 196 comments
  • 11,830 views
Not sure Norbit was all that serious, and still dont get how that equates to rape or murder.
 
Not sure Norbit was all that serious, and still dont get how that equates to rape or murder.

853.gif
 
OJ Simpson - Once a beloved figure in 80s USA but now a bad guy thanks to the murder accusation which will never leave him
Bill Cosby - Once a beloved figure in 80s USA but now a bad guy thanks to drugging and raping women
Eddie Murphy - Once a beloved figure in 80s USA but now a bad guy because he's done crap films like Norbit
 
...You all think Norbit is bad? I suggest that you strongly avoid Pluto Nash, then. That one's even worse. I should know - I had the misfortune of seeing both of them years ago.
 
...You all think Norbit is bad? I suggest that you strongly avoid Pluto Nash, then. That one's even worse. I should know - I had the misfortune of seeing both of them years ago.
Just thinking about the donkey in Shrek is enough to give me the bad kind of goosebumps.
 
Along with Roman Polanski. Let no man say the Academy doesn't respond quickly to criminal convictions over sex acts.
I appreciate the irony, as in the Polanski case the response was only four decades after the fact!

Was the delay was due to evolution in morals and values over the period of time? Unless I misunderstand, both men broadly speaking committed the same crime, sex acts involving the recreational use of the most commonly prescribed sedative at the time together with against experienced women consenting to the basic sex act and later having a change off heart. Albeit in one case the woman was slightly underage. Back in the day, these "superstar playboys", alpha males with too much fame and money, were almost expected to act in what was then and now upper-handed and supercilious ways. My cousin Karl figures our genetics haven't changed, but our culture has.
 
Was the delay was due to evolution in morals and values over the period of time?
Unlikely. It's not like he got away with it and allegations only just surfaced - Polanski was convicted and sent to prison in 1977 for raping a 13-year old girl...
 
Unlikely. It's not like he got away with it and allegations only just surfaced - Polanski was convicted and sent to prison in 1977 for raping a 13-year old girl...
He may have been "sent", but he didn't go. He claimed to have pled guilty because the prosecutor promised a sentence not involving imprisonment. When the judge thought differently, Polanski fled the US and has lived his superstar playboy life, except never returning to the US.

But my question still is, why did the Academy wait 40 years to expel Polanski?
 
He may have been "sent", but he didn't go.
Except for 7 weeks, when he did - Chino State Prison, for a court-ordered 90-day psychological evaluation following his guilty plea.

He was released after 42 days, then fled the country the day before sentencing after he learned that he was likely to be given a custodial sentence than the probation he had been expecting.
 
Except for 7 weeks, when he did - Chino State Prison, for a court-ordered 90-day psychological evaluation following his guilty plea.

He was released after 42 days, then fled the country the day before sentencing after he learned that he was likely to be given a custodial sentence than the probation he had been expecting.
Of course. But is there any theory or explanation for the delay in the action of the Academy, other than my suggestion of cultural evolution in morals and values?
 
But my question still is, why did the Academy wait 40 years to expel Polanski?
Better late than never, and at least the Academy is showing that it is keeping up with the latest trends!

Polanski's expulsion shows that the Academy will no longer tolerate rapists within their ranks, and should put the fear of God into any other perps out there who may now also face the awful prospect of having to pay to see films at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater.
 
Of course. But is there any theory or explanation for the delay in the action of the Academy, other than my suggestion of cultural evolution in morals and values?

I wonder if it's because child marriage is only just becoming outlawed in some parts of the US. Polanski's rape admission was of statutory rape (implying consent although I don't know if that's accurate). In 1977 they could have been already been married for several years in the US. That would even be true in 2001.
 
I wonder if it's because child marriage is only just becoming outlawed in some parts of the US. Polanski's rape admission was of statutory rape (implying consent although I don't know if that's accurate). In 1977 they could have been already been married for several years in the US. That would even be true in 2001.
Can you explain the connection between marriage among legally consenting men and women and being 13 years old in a photo session, then plied with booze and quaaludes and then raped? You can also marry and get raped at 21 or 35 or 60.
 
Can you explain the connection between marriage among legally consenting men and women and being 13 years old in a photo session, then plied with booze and quaaludes and then raped?

No - and I said I wasn't clear on the facts. After reviewing them it seems clear to me it was non-consensual rape. Nonetheless the conviction was of a statutory rape offence ('unlawful sexual intercourse') as a result of plea-bargaining.

Therefore my feeling remains: that statutory act has been easily legalised depending on the nature of the partnership between participants at certain times and places in the US. I'm not defending Polanski, on reading a little more I see he evidently committed a horrible act but that wasn't reflected in the sentence that was handed down. That's why I feel that he's largely avoided censure from the Academy et al.
 
I will now make the claim that all morals and values were fixed in amber at the beginning of time and no change or evolution has occurred whatsoever. :grumpy:

They are absolute, fixed, certain, unchangeable and apply equally to everyone everywhere at all times, past, present and future. They are not relative and not subjective. This is proof that postmodernism is a hoax.
 
Last edited:
I will now make the claim that all morals and values were fixed in amber at the beginning of time and no change or evolution has occurred whatsoever. :grumpy:

They are absolute, fixed, certain, unchangeable and apply equally to everyone everywhere at all times, past, present and future. They are not relative and not subjective. This is proof that postmodernism is a hoax.
Are you able to make a post that doesn't involve postmodernism anymore?
 
I will now make the claim that all morals and values were fixed in amber at the beginning of time and no change or evolution has occurred whatsoever. :grumpy:

They are absolute, fixed, certain, unchangeable and apply equally to everyone everywhere at all times, past, present and future. They are not relative and not subjective. This is proof that postmodernism is a hoax.

Pfft, stop being so grumpy :D

Post-modernism is subjective in (and of) itself - it requires belief-in-something-after-a deterministic-world-view. If you never subscribe to such a view (or any of the multifarious modernist decriptors) then you never get to post-modernism. In some frames of reference post-modernism therefore is a hoax, or at least a state that can't be achieved without purely subjective precursors.
 
Last edited:
One suspects that may have been the last one, based on the contents. Take the win.
I have not won. I'm not even winning, though I may be on the path of righteousness. Postmodernism, Cultural Marxism and social engineering is winning, and it's destroying our grasp on consensual reality, rationalism and empiricism. I need more recruits in this cultural battle, and I need to practice and hone my killer rhetoric like I do my fencing actions. :lol: Happy is the warrior firm in his cause.
 
Albeit in one case the woman was slightly underage.

13 is slightly underage? I guess when you're in your seventies the difference between 13 and 18 seems slight. I assure you that it's not, particularly when the other party is in their 40s and has financial power over the younger.

But by all means, continue to make excuses for drugging and sexually assaulting a 13 year old.
 
13 is slightly underage? I guess when you're in your seventies the difference between 13 and 18 seems slight. I assure you that it's not, particularly when the other party is in their 40s and has financial power over the younger.

But by all means, continue to make excuses for drugging and sexually assaulting a 13 year old.
14 was the legal age of consent in Canada until just a few years ago so 13 would have been slightly under age to give consent throughout most of our history.
 
Given the sheer number of his victims, the abhorrent nature of his crimes and the total lack of any remorse that he has shown, it is a shamefully light sentence. Couple that with the fact that the appeals process and legal machinations that he can afford could easily keep him out of jail until he dies, and you have all the makings of a travesty. I only hope that he serves some hard time.

Of course, it is already a travesty - just as Jimmy Savile got away with his vile abuse for decades in the UK, Cosby could only reach the ripe old age of 81 without conviction because of the fact that celebrity status and money buys you power and seemingly a blind eye from everyone, including the law. Hopefully that era is now coming to an end - Savile was already dead before his first accuser ever had the courage to speak up. One can only applaud the courage of those who stood up against Cosby and his vile entourage, and the culture that allowed him to perpetrate his crimes for so long.

Good riddance Cosby, hope you burn in hell.
 
Back