Bill Cosby

Status
Not open for further replies.
And maybe Armstrong's purpose was to give you something to obsess about beyond all sense and reason.

Seriously, what is the point of this thread? If you want to discuss the alleged sexual abuses by a famous celebrity then OK, possibly. But if you are using alleged rapes as a vehicle for reminding people that you hate Armstrong then you have your priorities horribly wrong.
 
Parker said:
And maybe Armstrong's purpose was to give you something to obsess about beyond all sense and reason.

Seriously, what is the point of this thread? If you want to discuss the alleged sexual abuses by a famous celebrity then OK, possibly. But if you are using alleged rapes as a vehicle for reminding people that you hate Armstrong then you have your priorities horribly wrong.
lol.

Thanks for reminding us who you are.
 
Parker said:
And maybe Armstrong's purpose was to give you something to obsess about beyond all sense and reason.

Seriously, what is the point of this thread? If you want to discuss the alleged sexual abuses by a famous celebrity then OK, possibly. But if you are using alleged rapes as a vehicle for reminding people that you hate Armstrong then you have your priorities horribly wrong.
Au contraire, I thought it was obvious from the OP that I'm saying Cosby's behavior puts LA's in perspective, that there’s really far worse than what LA did (at least, what we know he did so far). For the record, I’ve never said I hated LA, I’ve even argued that he ought to be allowed to compete in tris again.

While I don’t want to see this thread end up as another discussion centering on LA, given that this is part of a cycling forum, I don’t believe that comparing Cosby (assuming the allegations are true, and I have little doubt they are) with LA is out of bounds. Both were mega-celebrities with images that turned out to be very different from reality. Both took advantage of their immense power to intimidate those who might have testified against them (though how far Cosby might have taken this is an interesting issue that remains to be revealed). Both benefited from a public that did not want to believe the worst about their hero. Both were finally exposed only after they retired, or at least were no longer relevant in their profession. Both have used the “there’s no evidence”, “my word against theirs” defense. Both still have their supporters, though in LA’s case they’re arguing that his sins are overblown, whereas Cosby’s supporters are still in the denial stage.

And there's the hypocrisy. LA inspiring people to believe that a former cancer patient can do anything, even win the TDF clean. Cosby criticizing African-American men, in large part, for not being able to keep their pants zipped.

I'll repeat: I find Cosby far worse, and not only because of the seriousness of what he did. A man in his position would never have lacked for sexual opportunities. His behavior was not only criminal, but unnecessary. It reeks of someone who did it just because he knew he could get away with it, not for an end that otherwise would have been out of reach. It would be somewhat like LA, able to win the TDF clean, doping anyway, just to increase his margin of victory and pick up additional stage wins.
 
Jan 24, 2012
1,169
0
0
Cosby is going on live TV tomorrow (or public appearance) or sunday right? He's going to talk about the allegations? Or did he did do that tonight??

Yes Cosby is worse, even if Armstrong is a bona fide jackass, he did not do what Cosby supposedly/likely did.
 
Jun 22, 2009
4,991
0
0
Merckx index said:
Au contraire, I thought it was obvious from the OP that I'm saying Cosby's behavior puts LA's in perspective, that there’s really far worse than what LA did (at least, what we know he did so far). For the record, I’ve never said I hated LA, I’ve even argued that he ought to be allowed to compete in tris again.

While I don’t want to see this thread end up as another discussion centering on LA, given that this is part of a cycling forum, I don’t believe that comparing Cosby (assuming the allegations are true, and I have little doubt they are) with LA is out of bounds. Both were mega-celebrities with images that turned out to be very different from reality. Both took advantage of their immense power to intimidate those who might have testified against them (though how far Cosby might have taken this is an interesting issue that remains to be revealed). Both benefited from a public that did not want to believe the worst about their hero. Both were finally exposed only after they retired, or at least were no longer relevant in their profession. Both have used the “there’s no evidence”, “my word against theirs” defense. Both still have their supporters, though in LA’s case they’re arguing that his sins are overblown, whereas Cosby’s supporters are still in the denial stage.

And there's the hypocrisy. LA inspiring people to believe that a former cancer patient can do anything, even win the TDF clean. Cosby criticizing African-American men, in large part, for not being able to keep their pants zipped.

I'll repeat: I find Cosby far worse, and not only because of the seriousness of what he did. A man in his position would never have lacked for sexual opportunities. His behavior was not only criminal, but unnecessary. It reeks of someone who did it just because he knew he could get away with it, not for an end that otherwise would have been out of reach. It would be somewhat like LA, able to win the TDF clean, doping anyway, just to increase his margin of victory and pick up additional stage wins.
An absolutely splendid, articulate, and bang on the money post, Merckx, for which my sincere thanks and appreciation!
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Parker said:
And maybe Armstrong's purpose was to give you something to obsess about beyond all sense and reason.

Seriously, what is the point of this thread? If you want to discuss the alleged sexual abuses by a famous celebrity then OK, possibly. But if you are using alleged rapes as a vehicle for reminding people that you hate Armstrong then you have your priorities horribly wrong.
It's similar to the Armstrong case in the sense that someone who was lionized as this great noble person (largely with the complicity of the main stream media), was something else entirely.
 
Merckx index said:
If everything has a purpose, maybe Cosby's purpose is to make us think better of Lance Armstrong...
Probably not. What won't likely happen in any sustained fashion, would be a reflection on a specifically twentieth century version of (as noted above) media abetted abuses of others from a "masculine" vantage of social and economic power.

Otherwise the comparison seems useless and moot.
 
Lance Armstrong is deperarely trying to stay relevant and I think it has more to do with him competing again. Not so much his efforts in the cancer community. He should be forgotten quickly by general public.
Bill Cosby, if these accusations are true, would be a pariah for the rest of his life. He would have a hard time showing his face in public again. This is truly tragic for the women.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Pazuzu said:
It's similar to the Armstrong case in the sense that someone who was lionized as this great noble person (largely with the complicity of the main stream media), was something else entirely.
maybe we need to lionise individuals. And the public are equally or more so responsible for the apotheosis of false gods. does everyone need their foundation myths to navigate and interpret their life?
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
blackcat said:
maybe we need to lionise individuals. And the public are equally or more so responsible for the apotheosis of false gods. does everyone need their foundation myths to navigate and interpret their life?
There's something to that, the building up (and taking down) of heroes. After his downfall Armstrong pointed out that he was never as good as we was made out to be, but he stressed that he's also not as bad as he's now made out to be.

veganrob said:
Bill Cosby, if these accusations are true, would be a pariah for the rest of his life. He would have a hard time showing his face in public again.
Before all this came to light Cosby was an entertainment giant, an institution. Now, he'll mainly be remembered for being a serial rapist.

The UK has had a similar experience with Jimmy Savile.
 
Thinking about it some more, I suspect that Cosby did not drug these women—as he is alleged to have done—because that was the only way he could have sex with them. As I noted before, a megastar like him probably could have gotten many, most, of these women in bed consensually. My guess he did it to avoid consequences that would be inconvenient for a family values spokesman—the women expecting to see him regularly, and if they were spurned, maybe some of them going to the media with their story. Even a story of consensual sex would have been embarrassing to someone with Cosby’s public image.

One of my favorite quotes comes from a famous madam, can’t remember her name, commenting on actor Hugh Grant. About fifteen years ago, Grant was revealed to be seeing prostitutes, though he had a relationship with I think it was a supermodel at the time. When someone asked this madam why a man as rich, famous and good-looking as Grant would pay women for sex, she replied: “Men don’t pay prostitutes for sex. They pay them so that they’ll leave when the sex is over.”

Drugging women would have accomplished the same thing for free, with less chance of the woman talking. Or so Cosby might have thought.
 
Merckx index said:
Thinking about it some more, I suspect that Cosby did not drug these women—as he is alleged to have done—because that was the only way he could have sex with them. As I noted before, a megastar like him probably could have gotten many, most, of these women in bed consensually. My guess he did it to avoid consequences that would be inconvenient for a family values spokesman—the women expecting to see him regularly, and if they were spurned, maybe some of them going to the media with their story. Even a story of consensual sex would have been embarrassing to someone with Cosby’s public image.

One of my favorite quotes comes from a famous madam, can’t remember her name, commenting on actor Hugh Grant. About fifteen years ago, Grant was revealed to be seeing prostitutes, though he had a relationship with I think it was a supermodel at the time. When someone asked this madam why a man as rich, famous and good-looking as Grant would pay women for sex, she replied: “Men don’t pay prostitutes for sex. They pay them so that they’ll leave when the sex is over.”

Drugging women would have accomplished the same thing for free, with less chance of the woman talking. Or so Cosby might have thought.
Cosby wasn't a family values spokesperson in 1969 when he performed a stand-up comedy act in front of hundreds of people, during which he joked about drugging and raping women. The crowd roared with laughter. That is effed up.

I not making this up. I'd provide a link, but I'm lazy. His stand-up routine in 1969 will not be hard to find.

Cosby did not give a **** about his image. He preyed upon people because he could. This kind of behaviour needs to stop.
 
Interesting perspective. It was Elizabeth Hurley who Hugh Grant cheated on. Yes, very beautiful woman. I imagine Tiger Woods, Eliot Spitzer, Dick Morris, etc. all thought similar.

I think what makes these allegations even more damning is that while a skeptic may think it's bitter people or gold diggers, several of these women are fairly well to do. A nurse, two attorneys. And a few more of them were reluctant to tell their story through the years. The stories also seem to be fairly detailed, and spread out over time, and likely tied to incidents that can be traced back to Cosby.

Agree that his career is completely over, he may be lucky to stay out of jail at this point.

Here's a good article on the topic from a few days ago when it exploded. Apparently two more women have since surfaced.
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Merckx index said:
Thinking about it some more, I suspect that Cosby did not drug these women—as he is alleged to have done—because that was the only way he could have sex with them. As I noted before, a megastar like him probably could have gotten many, most, of these women in bed consensually...
...Or not. Have you seen the account of Carla Ferrigno

In Ferrigno's story, Carla was working as a Playboy bunny in 1967 in Los Angeles, years before her 1980 marriage to Lou Ferrigno.

She was invited to Cosby's house by a man she had met at the Los Angeles airport. Ferrigno found herself late in the evening alone with Cosby, playing pool. Cosby's wife, Camille, had gone to bed and her date had gone to the bathroom. Cosby, she says, "came at me and grabbed me in such a powerful way."

She adds, "He was much bigger than me. Much bigger and he pulled me so hard and so rough. I had never been treated so roughly and he pulled me hard to him so hard. And then kissed me so hard, right in the mouth. No one has ever been that physically violent with me. I was stunned. I was frozen. I took all my body strength and used both of my arms to stop him and push him away from me. He was so forceful."

She asked him, "What are you doing?' And, she says, "He just looked at me." She ran into the hallway, found her date and made him take her home.

She says what sets her apart from other accusers is: "I never wanted anything from him."

And she's coming forward now, she says, because, "I want to be one of those women. One more nail in the coffin."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2014/11/20/two-new-bill-cosby-accusers-lou-ferrigno-therese-serignese/70011214/
 
Feb 4, 2012
435
0
0
Alpe d'Huez said:
Agree that his career is completely over, he may be lucky to stay out of jail at this point.
Jail? As far as I know the statute of limitations has run out on all of the alleged incidents. The most recent reported incident was from 10 years ago and the DA decided not to file charges, not because he didn't believe the accuser, rather he didn't think there was solid enough evidence to convict someone like Cosby. However the victim went on to sue Cosby and settled out of court for 'an undisclosed amount'. So Cosby had an opportunity to present his side of the story in front of a jury and he choose to pay out instead. Pretty damning I'd say. Also damning that the press sort of let the story disappear.

Ok, so Armstrong's not the best comparison. Here's one that is (and he's a buddy of Wonderboy): Bill Clinton. But unlike Cosby the allegations against Clinton, which include forceable rape have slid off him:http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/11/21/rape-allegations-hurt-bill-cosby-but-sail-past-bill-clinton/YTIsUoXS2uxrW1mW2JSuRM/story.html

“Media hunts down Bill Cosby, celebrates Bill Clinton,”observed Breitbart.com, offering up thumbnail reminders of those now decades-old incidents involving the ex-president:

Juanita Broaddrick, a Clinton campaign volunteer from the early Arkansas days, accused Clinton in 1998 of raping her when he was attorney general. Clinton eventually settled a sexual harassment lawsuit filed in 1994 by Paula Jones, relating to incidents she said happened when he was governor of Arkansas and she was a low-level state employee. Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer who worked on Clinton’s 1992 campaign, accused him of groping her in the White House in 1993.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Pazuzu said:
So Cosby had an opportunity to present his side of the story in front of a jury and he choose to pay out instead. Pretty damning I'd say. Also damning that the press sort of let the story disappear.
only damning in hindsight. not damning then, he could have been greenmailed, and his reputation taken a hit worth more than paying the plaintiff 7 figures to go away and sign a confidentiality non-dislosure. Like Kobe Bryant.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Merckx index said:
Thinking about it some more, I suspect that Cosby did not drug these women—as he is alleged to have done—because that was the only way he could have sex with them. As I noted before, a megastar like him probably could have gotten many, most, of these women in bed consensually. My guess he did it to avoid consequences that would be inconvenient for a family values spokesman—the women expecting to see him regularly, and if they were spurned, maybe some of them going to the media with their story. Even a story of consensual sex would have been embarrassing to someone with Cosby’s public image.

One of my favorite quotes comes from a famous madam, can’t remember her name, commenting on actor Hugh Grant. About fifteen years ago, Grant was revealed to be seeing prostitutes, though he had a relationship with I think it was a supermodel at the time. When someone asked this madam why a man as rich, famous and good-looking as Grant would pay women for sex, she replied: “Men don’t pay prostitutes for sex. They pay them so that they’ll leave when the sex is over.”

Drugging women would have accomplished the same thing for free, with less chance of the woman talking. Or so Cosby might have thought.

Cosby would have been having sex with the women that threw themselves at him too.

Re: Hugh Grant and Liz Hurley. Hurley has had too much work done, lips/ breasts, and that Versace saftety pin gown to something like the British Film Awards, to get publicity. She was a starlet, nothing more, not a serious actress, and always rode on Hugh Grants tails. Grant did milquetoast film, but he was an Oxford grad. Hurley hooks up with Shane Warne. 'nuff said
 
hrotha said:
Rape is not simply about having sex, rape is mostly about power. So I have no idea why you guys are talking about how Cosby could have had almost any woman he wanted thanks to his being famous.
So you're saying that having one's way with various people due to celebrity is not about "power"? You think they're strictly separable phenomena? "Siloed" pathologies as the imbecilic corporatized speak of the moment would have it?
 
aphronesis said:
So you're saying that having one's way with various people due to celebrity is not about "power"? You think they're strictly separable phenomena? "Siloed" pathologies as the imbecilic corporatized speak of the moment would have it?
Yes, I'm saying having consensual sex does not involve the same kind of power as forcing yourself upon an unwilling partner. Because duh.
 
hrotha said:
Yes, I'm saying having consensual sex does not involve the same kind of power as forcing yourself upon an unwilling partner. Because duh.
Well, uh, that wasn't my question. You said "rape is about power"! Duh. They teach that in, what, the third grade now? Probably earlier if it weren't for the messy sexual aspect.

I'm asking about the capillary aspects of power and coercion. The inviolable aspect of bodily self propriety is a given of the current Western economic regime. (Except when it's not: you know, trafficking, slavery, marginalisation, etc). Others were--unwittingly or unconsciously--getting at a more subtle argument. You came in and shouted them down with the enlightened party line.

But since you're now differentiating types of power, maybe contrasts with force should be thrown into the mix.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY