Are men human beings?

Post Reply New Topic

So you don't believe in the presumption of innocence when someone is accused of a crime?



Actually yes, you absolutely should have to explain it. So far you've done no more than make insubstantial pronouncements and claimed them to be self-evident.

Perry Smith, who had been one of the two murderers in Truman Copote's [i]In Cold Blood[/i], had been raped more than once in the military. You have to wonder if that had something to do with the mass murders he had been involved in.

The accusations in combination with his sworn deposition are fairly damning.

He may not have considered it rape. His wife may not have considered it rape. 40+ women are pretty sure they were raped.

Even if you believe that there is an implicit consent given by a woman who takes a drug in your presence that you may have sex with her, part of that assumption of implicit consent is attached to the woman actually knowing what the drug is and what effect it might have on her.

Quaaludes were sleeping pills. They were only recreational if you could fight off the urge to sleep.

The accusations are that these women did not know what they were taking, passed out or mostly passed out, and he then had his way with them while they were unable to resist.

And again, this happened so long ago that none of them can do anything about it in court. There may have been money in it for some of them if they kept it secret. There's nothing they can gain for themselves by talking about it.



Alright. How about this passage:

In the latest round of trial by media for Bill Cosby, the “stunning” revelation now alleged is that he gave women Quaaludes with the expectation it would help him score sex.

My response: Big f*****g whoop. Women have been trading gash for stash for as long as I can remember, and they still are.

This is an absurd distortion both Cosby's sworn deposition and the accusations against him.

The allegations relating to the deposition are that Cosby gave her a coffee, and then she got in a car with him, and the next thing she remembers is that she is waking up and her clothes are in disarray.

Cosby's own words on what follows, are these:



So he's saying, since she didn't appear to have been angry, it must have been consensual.

Her statement of her condition at the time was that she was in shock, confused, and did not yet fully understand what had happened to her.

The suggestion in the article that this was a drugs-for-sex transaction and that women always do this appears intended to give people who are unfamiliar with even Cosby's side of the story the impression that this was just a casual consensual thing and then almost 40 years later the woman is trying to "get more" out of this man by, pressing criminal charges against him? how does that work?

By his own admission, these women did not approach him - he approached them, with offers to "mentor" them and help them with their careers as entertainers.

By his own admission, they did not ask for drugs.

It's deceitful and dismissive of the author, and betrays, wait for it, misogyny. The author has distorted both the facts and the allegations of the matter in order to paint women in general in a bad light.

The author is in fact a loud, even leading voice in men's rights.

Now, speaking as a man, I do know men who have gotten the s**t end of the stick in ugly divorces.

I know men who aren't allowed to see their kids for reasons that have little to do with facts.

As a man, I resent that i'm assumed to be a potential predator while women are assumed not to be.

I believe that these are "men's rights" issues.

But the MRAs aren't advocating for me. They're advocating for a**holes.

I don't think all relationships are, but this is irrelevant. I was answering adifferentname, who asked me something related to my previous post on how to prove someone is a human being. Whether someone is actually interested in doing it is beside the point.



I choose what to concern myself with. It's noöne else's business.



I've taken notice of your insult. I'll continue to examine this topic, or any other, from a scientific point of view whether you think I have a disturbed mind or not.

And no, nobody deserves anybody else's love. I don't have a duty to love anybody, with the possible exception of my parents. Someone else's child hasn't done anything to earn my love and I refuse to love them. You could kill me, but you'll never be able to force me to love.

And this is why such things don't belong in the court of public opinion. I'm confused by your suggestion they have nothing to gain from making these allegations. There is value in more than simple monetary settlements. Nor would a court settlement constitute the only way someone could financially profit from such an allegation.



Hardly. His particular issue seems to be with people who trade sex, and he appears to believe that at least some of these women fall into that category. You cannot infer generalised hatred of a group from a specific dislike of a specific behaviour of a subgroup.

Do you also believe that your willingness to claim Cosby is guilty sans charges, let alone a trial, constitutes misandry?

What evidence do you have to support your assertion that she was in shock? As far as I'm aware, she did not seek medical assistance following the event.



Why is this important? Are you trying to characterise the entire movement based on your interpretation of this article?



I agree.



They're advocating for all men. They don't get to exclude the a**holes just because it'd be convenient to throw them under the bus.

I have a step-son, and I am a step-son. I have seen both sides of this, so I know where I'm coming from. Love should not be conditional, and those that say it is do not truly love.

No, it would go to show that WrongPlanet is not Buzzfeed or the Daily Mail.

I have explained this to you in private. Please avoid creating threads with provocative titles, particularly threads about atheism and feminism, and particularly ones where you can provide an answer within the first clause of the opening post.

I'm not going to lock the thread because a discussion is well underway (and I'm glad I didn't see it straight away, because it's shown a whole new side to one of the site's most notorious right wingers).

I disagree. Both my wife and I definitely love our daughter unconditionally. Nothing could ever make us stop loving her.

This is not true.

Firstly, the biological species concept isn't in favour at present because it is pretty limited.

Secondly, this is a misapplication of it.

Anatomical and physiological evidence would be seen as quite adequate proof that one is human, and of course, others have mentioned genetic evidence (I'd also raise proteonomic evidence).

Misguided as AspieOtaku's topics might be at times, they do create a platform for some interesting conversations.

Violence against men should be taken more seriously by society, especially rape, which is ignored all too much.


Too true. As a single aging childless woman I can say that people often treat me with an offended curiosity.

As for Bil Cosby, it has been revealed that he testified to using rape drugs to physically dominate women. This is no longer an issue for debate. He did it.

All violence should be taken seriously, but I agree that violence against men tends to receive less attention than it should.



He gave a deposition stating that he scored the pills in order to give them to women in pursuit of sex. I haven't read the full deposition, however, so I don't know the context - nor have I seen it provided in any articles. Oh, and there is no such thing as a "rape drug", though there are drugs that are used to facilitate rape.

New York Times


That reads to me as a polite way of saying that he used drugs to make women physically vulnerable to him. He claims that everyone was doing that in the '70s. He may be right, but I still think he's a predator.


Thanks for the clarification.

Like I said, the articles lack context. That line from the NYT doesn't contain a direct quote, nor does it provide the context regarding what Cosby is alleged to have said. It reads to me as an inferred connection between two unconnected statements, designed to create a specific narrative. The same is true of other articles I've read.

Simply put, I'd like to read the transcript of the deposition myself before I'd even consider it as 'evidence' of anything.

Read away:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ition.html

Frankly my suspicion is that you have misogynistic leanings yourself, but i don't care.

This isn't a high school forensics class and i don't have any reason to try and "win" an argument over whether loudest, most active section of the men's rights movement is run by misogynists. It's manifestly true whether you agree with me or not.

Lulz, who else would hijack the men's rights movement? I personally learned of it from a bookish lady on YouTube.