| https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/bill-cosby-scandal/bill-cosby-found-guilty-sexual-assault-retrial-n869121 I didn; t think he would be found guilty, Cosby's lawyers really tore into that lesbo. Anyway, hard to believe now that Cosby was such a big TV star in the 80's. Now, he seems more like a wealthier version of Joran Van Der Sloot.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2819219/Prison-bid-stab-Joran-Van-der-Sloot-death-Convicted-killer-attacked-fellow-inmates-wanted-die-ultra-tough-prison-closed.html Van Der Sloot survived this attack actually. Mod edit: Changed the title to match the article title as this is a controversial thread. |
ArdanazApr 27, 2018 7:58 AM
| It's pretty obvious Cosby did rape some of the women but most were just after money. |
 |
| #MeToo movement just got a big boost after this |
| Dang. The justice system has an ounce of credibility. They'll lose it by next week but still. |
 |
| Down goes Cosby! Finally! Dude's entire acting career is now a stain...I wasn't a fan, but it's amazing how people in positions of power abuse said positions. Now we wait for the sentence... |
| I didn't even know there was an actual court case. I just thought it was all past the time he could be tried for rape. I guess there must be exceptions for certain instances or some were recent enough. Doesn't feel very satisfying since these events took place so long ago and he's pretty old and going blind so prison is just going to be not totally unlike a nursing home for him I imagine. |
--ALEX-- said: Down goes Cosby! Finally! Dude's entire acting career is now a stain...I wasn't a fan, but it's amazing how people in positions of power abuse said positions. Now we wait for the sentence... Not only those in positions of power but the yes people that surround them that allow it to happen. Like Weinstein's abuse was an open secret, some agents knew and still sent their actresses to the hotel to meet with him. |
 |
traed said: I guess there must be exceptions for certain instances or some were recent enough. Doesn't feel very . The case that was tried was for sexual assault that occurred in 2004 and he was charged in 2015 which is within the limitations by a year. The irony is, the DA didn't file charges against Cosby when the woman first reported it to police in 2005, so she sued him. The deposition from that lawsuit, was one of the key pieces of evidences that led to his conviction. Makes you really wonder how many he did actually get away with assaulting. |
 I have a feeling Kanye will actually be the next president. |
| At first I didn't believe it. Then after about 15 accusations, I was like "He probably only raped like three of those women." |
Hoppy said: It's pretty obvious Cosby did rape some of the women but most were just after money. PsychoticDave said: The Evil Gold Digging Women you guys are worried about are mostly a figment of the red-pilled imagination. It's not that women don't lie or aren't motivated by money. Of course they do and are, as men do and are. But accusing someone of sexual assault is far from a trivial affair and usually does not result in a conviction. It usually takes a huge toll on the accuser in both material (legal costs, lost jobs, lost social networks) and immaterial (stress, anxiety, shame) terms. Most women (indeed, most people) aren't so cartoonishly evil as to go through all of that willingly AND knowingly throw an innocent person under the bus for the low probability chance of getting a few dollars. It just makes no sense.At first I didn't believe it. Then after about 15 accusations, I was like "He probably only raped like three of those women." |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Josh said: Hoppy said: It's pretty obvious Cosby did rape some of the women but most were just after money. PsychoticDave said: The Evil Gold Digging Women you guys are worried about are mostly a figment of the red-pilled imagination. It's not that women don't lie or aren't motivated by money. Of course they do and are, as men do and are. But accusing someone of sexual assault is far from a trivial affair and usually does not result in a conviction. It usually takes a huge toll on the accuser in both material (legal costs, lost jobs, lost social networks) and immaterial (stress, anxiety, shame) terms. Most women (indeed, most people) aren't so cartoonishly evil as to go through all of that willingly AND knowingly throw an innocent person under the bus for the low probability chance of getting a few dollars. It just makes no sense.At first I didn't believe it. Then after about 15 accusations, I was like "He probably only raped like three of those women." If you think people aren't fucked up enough to lie in court, you really need to readjust your views on life because do much worse things to innocent people. Like rape and murder and what-not. People are fucked up. If someone had a load of money and one simple lie with no evidence needed had a possibility of getting me set for life, I'd do it. |
| MyAlabamaLand strikes again. PsychoticDave said: If you think people aren't fucked up enough to lie in court, you really need to readjust your views on life because do much worse things to innocent people. Like rape and murder and what-not. People are fucked up. If someone had a load of money and one simple lie with no evidence needed had a possibility of getting me set for life, I'd do it. The vast majority of sexual crime goes unreported and only about 1% of rape accusations are false. But you still think most of Cosby's accusers are lying? That's exactly the kind of view that keeps women from reporting sexual crime in the first place. Very few rape accusations lead to convictions so you would need a hell of a lot more than "one simple lie", and it's not something that's lied about easily. |
zodd0 said: MyAlabamaLand strikes again. PsychoticDave said: If you think people aren't fucked up enough to lie in court, you really need to readjust your views on life because do much worse things to innocent people. Like rape and murder and what-not. People are fucked up. If someone had a load of money and one simple lie with no evidence needed had a possibility of getting me set for life, I'd do it. The vast majority of sexual crime goes unreported and only about 1% of rape accusations are false. But you still think most of Cosby's accusers are lying? That's exactly the kind of view that keeps women from reporting sexual crime in the first place. Very few rape accusations lead to convictions so you would need a hell of a lot more than "one simple lie", and it's not something that's lied about easily. You raped me. See? It's easy. Not saying they're all lying, but a lot are. You really think Michael Jackson touched all those boys whose parents tried to sue him? |
PsychoticDave said: That's not what I think or said, hence my repeated use of "most." Also, as I suggested, "one simple lie" is an absurdly inaccurate description of the reality of sexual assault cases. You can't hide behind, "people are fucked up, reality is harsh, etc." Those platitudes don't explain why you, Hoppy, and others choose to ignore the balance of evidence and argument (which both suggest that the vast majority of sexual assault accusations are genuine, even if most do not result in convictions) in favour of a narrative about scheming gold diggers.If you think people aren't fucked up enough to lie in court, you really need to readjust your views on life because do much worse things to innocent people. Like rape and murder and what-not. People are fucked up. If someone had a load of money and one simple lie with no evidence needed had a possibility of getting me set for life, I'd do it. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
PsychoticDave said: You raped me. See? It's easy. Not saying they're all lying, but a lot are. You really think Michael Jackson touched all those boys whose parents tried to sue him? Comparing a forum board to a court room. Nice. Why don't you accuse someone of raping you then if it's so easy? Like Brad Pitt maybe? He has a lot of money. Come up with some proof of their lies at least, instead of just saying it because you think women are evil. Care to adress the statistics I mentioned or will you ignore them because they don't fit your world view? |
zodd0 said: PsychoticDave said: You raped me. See? It's easy. Not saying they're all lying, but a lot are. You really think Michael Jackson touched all those boys whose parents tried to sue him? Comparing a forum board to a court room. Nice. Why don't you accuse someone of raping you then if it's so easy? Like Brad Pitt maybe? He has a lot of money. Come up with some proof of their lies at least, instead of just saying it because you think women are evil. Care to adress the statistics I mentioned or will you ignore them because they don't fit your world view? All statistics are made up, so... |
| Zippity zobbity zape he's going to jail for rape |
| Never found him funny and he's a piece of shit so *Ike voice* you'll get no sympathy from me |
| The definition of rape keeps expanding, it's strange that people don't realize that regular sex we're having now might be considered rape if like drugs were involved for example or even if we didn't get "affirmative consent" we might even have those consent contracts/forms. Anyway I wasn't a big fan of Cosby, but this was just a typical media smear job on a very rich and powerful person. The legal system isn't so much about justice anymore, rather just extracting money and jailing men. I don't doubt he "raped" the women, but during that time it wasn't actually considered rape. |
 "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
LoneWolf said: The definition of rape keeps expanding, it's strange that people don't realize that regular sex we're having now might be considered rape if like drugs were involved for example or even if we didn't get "affirmative consent" we might even have those consent contracts/forms. Anyway I wasn't a big fan of Cosby, but this was just a typical media smear job on a very rich and powerful person. The legal system isn't so much about justice anymore, rather just extracting money and jailing men. I don't doubt he "raped" the women, but during that time it wasn't actually considered rape. Come on bro...a media smear job? 50+ women????????? At least look into the allegations bro.... it's not really far-fetched to say you have an unhealthy mistrust towards women in general.... |
LoneWolf said: The definition of rape keeps expanding, it's strange that people don't realize that regular sex we're having now might be considered rape if like drugs were involved for example or even if we didn't get "affirmative consent" we might even have those consent contracts/forms. [yt]y1o_iY99eeA[yt] Anyway I wasn't a big fan of Cosby, but this was just a typical media smear job on a very rich and powerful person. The legal system isn't so much about justice anymore, rather just extracting money and jailing men. I don't doubt he "raped" the women, but during that time it wasn't actually considered rape. Using drugs that incapacitate is no doubt rape. There is no argument to be had. |
traed said: LoneWolf said: The definition of rape keeps expanding, it's strange that people don't realize that regular sex we're having now might be considered rape if like drugs were involved for example or even if we didn't get "affirmative consent" we might even have those consent contracts/forms. [yt]y1o_iY99eeA[yt] Anyway I wasn't a big fan of Cosby, but this was just a typical media smear job on a very rich and powerful person. The legal system isn't so much about justice anymore, rather just extracting money and jailing men. I don't doubt he "raped" the women, but during that time it wasn't actually considered rape. Using drugs that incapacitate is no doubt rape. There is no argument to be had. I'm talking about how societal and legal standards for rape keep changing;obviously it's is considered rape now, but people would take drugs all the time back in the 70's and stuff. It's hard to get into people's heads in the past, but I don't think they actually considered it rape. Everyone was doing drugs and having sex with strangers back then. |
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
LoneWolf said: I'm talking about how societal and legal standards for rape keep changing;obviously it's is considered rape now, but people would take drugs all the time back in the 70's and stuff. It's hard to get into people's heads in the past, but I don't think they actually considered it rape. Everyone was doing drugs and having sex with strangers back then. You're in a fucking law degree and you still don't know how consent works? People that are unconcious or concious but totally out of to where they barely can function cant consent. Also drugging unknowing people is also a crime in itself. |
traedApr 28, 2018 11:28 PM
| Funny how the redpill/incel crowd still try to downplay this and go “oh, well only a few women were probably raped”. Or the argument that “well, it wasn’t considered rape back then, but the PC police changed all that!” Is beyond ridiculous. Y’all need serious therapy. Glad to hear that Cosby is finally going down for this. Long overdue. |
 |
LoneWolf said: I'm talking about how societal and legal standards for rape keep changing;obviously it's is considered rape now, but people would take drugs all the time back in the 70's and stuff. It's hard to get into people's heads in the past, but I don't think they actually considered it rape. Everyone was doing drugs and having sex with strangers back then. BRUH!!!!!! This isn't about having sex while you're both high on weed or after a night out in the club, it's about a guy being predatory and using drugs on unsuspecting women in order to incapacitate them. MEANING THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY WERE DRUGGED DUDE FFS, and some of the assaults happened in this past 12+ years... |
traed said: LoneWolf said: I'm talking about how societal and legal standards for rape keep changing;obviously it's is considered rape now, but people would take drugs all the time back in the 70's and stuff. It's hard to get into people's heads in the past, but I don't think they actually considered it rape. Everyone was doing drugs and having sex with strangers back then. You're in a fucking law degree and you still don't know how consent works? People that are unconcious or concious but totally out of to where they barely can function cant consent. Also drugging unknowing people is also a crime in itself. Yeah jay walking and downloading movies and music is illegal too, that doesn't mean people don't do it. People get blackout drunk and still have sex today and they don't call it rape. You make it seem like these people were not likely already on some type of drug before the encounter. Like I said I can't get into the minds of people in the past, but from what I've heard it seemed like the norm to do a bunch of drugs and have sex. The type of drugs or whether you're taking them voluntarily wouldn't really be seen as a big deal. Obviously it's going to be considered rape in today's standards. I'm saying back then wouldn't see it that way. You can't apply today's standard to crimes that were committed 30+ years ago. Obviously the one that he got convicted for was recent enough that the statute didn't expire. I don't know the details, but yeah if he is doing this shit recently obviously he will get locked up. |
LoneWolfApr 29, 2018 10:47 AM
"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." -Friedrich Nietzsche |
PsychoticDave said: What was the proof he had raped anyone? Found it. He admitted to being prescribed drugs and giving them to women he wanted to have sex with. That's the proof? Wow, the justice system has gone to shit. He raped her because he gave her his prescribed medication. Only law he broke is regarding his prescription and the junkie women he 'raped' are clearly just after money. The drug was a love drug in the 70s that made people want to fuck and enjoy it more. Who takes Viagra in the club just to have a good time and not fuck anyone? |
PsychoticDave said: What was the proof he had raped anyone? That he admitted in court to misleading women to take pills that incapacitated them as well as admitting it was a practice he had done for decades. |
GamerDLM said: PsychoticDave said: What was the proof he had raped anyone? That he admitted in court to misleading women to take pills that incapacitated them as well as admitting it was a practice he had done for decades. When I want to have sex with a chick, we smoke some weed first. So now it's rape because if she hadn't smoked, she may not have wanted to have sex, but now we'll never know? My point is innocent until proven guilty. He could have raped twice as many people for all I care. Still no actual proof but a statement out of context that was actually legal when it happened. |
PsychoticDave said: GamerDLM said: That he admitted in court to misleading women to take pills that incapacitated them as well as admitting it was a practice he had done for decades. When I want to have sex with a chick, we smoke some weed first. So now it's rape because if she hadn't smoked, she may not have wanted to have sex, but now we'll never know? My point is innocent until proven guilty. He could have raped twice as many people for all I care. Still no actual proof but a statement out of context that was actually legal when it happened. That's why they have laws regarding consent. If a person is not in a state of mind in which they can be reasonably considered to consent then it's a crime. But telling a women it's benadryl, a common cold medicine, but instead giving them a powerful sedative that had been well known as a date rape drug that caused them to be unable to resist is clearly rape. |
GamerDLMApr 29, 2018 11:06 AM
GamerDLM said: PsychoticDave said: When I want to have sex with a chick, we smoke some weed first. So now it's rape because if she hadn't smoked, she may not have wanted to have sex, but now we'll never know? My point is innocent until proven guilty. He could have raped twice as many people for all I care. Still no actual proof but a statement out of context that was actually legal when it happened. That's why they have consent laws. If a person is not in a state of mind in which they can be reasonably considered to consent then it's a crime. But telling a women it's benadryl, a common cold medicine, but instead giving them a powerful sedative that had been well known as a date rape drug that caused them to be unable to resist is clearly rape. The drug he gave them is 'Quaaludes'. When asked if he gave them to women without their knowledge, his legal team had him not answer. So there's absolutely no proof he ever raped anyone. Was never said that he said it was cold medicine. Can't find that part. |
PsychoticDave said: GamerDLM said: That's why they have consent laws. If a person is not in a state of mind in which they can be reasonably considered to consent then it's a crime. But telling a women it's benadryl, a common cold medicine, but instead giving them a powerful sedative that had been well known as a date rape drug that caused them to be unable to resist is clearly rape. The drug he gave them is 'Quaaludes'. When asked if he gave them to women without their knowledge, his legal team had him not answer. So there's absolutely no proof he ever raped anyone. Was never said that he said it was cold medicine. Can't find that part. Of course his legal team would advise him against saying he gave it to them without their knowledge. That would be the nail in the coffin admission which no reasonable defense team could overcome you might as well be saying "well he didn't plead guilty so there was no proof". To which I would follow up did you check the testimony of the women involved in the trial or do you just completely take Bill Cosby at his word? Because he did admit to acquiring the Quaaludes with the intent to use them to have sex with women. That also still doesn't change the fact that giving them Quaaludes put them in a state in which they could not consent or resist. |
GamerDLM said: PsychoticDave said: The drug he gave them is 'Quaaludes'. When asked if he gave them to women without their knowledge, his legal team had him not answer. So there's absolutely no proof he ever raped anyone. Was never said that he said it was cold medicine. Can't find that part. Of course his legal team would advise him against saying he gave it to them without their knowledge. That would be the nail in the coffin admission which no reasonable defense team could overcome you might as well be saying "well he didn't plead guilty so there was no proof". To which I would follow up did you check the testimony of the women involved in the trial or do you just completely take Bill Cosby at his word? Because he did admit to acquiring the Quaaludes with the intent to use them to have sex with women. That also still doesn't change the fact that giving them Quaaludes put them in a state in which they could not consent or resist. It's not nearly as strong as you think it is. It's basically a muscle relaxer / valium. They definitely still had the ability to consent or fight back. Or are you telling me Cosby is a doctor and gave each woman a certain amount to incapacitate her but not OD her? Because ODing on that shit is easy. |
Hias said: Funny how the redpill/incel crowd still try to downplay this and go “oh, well only a few women were probably raped”. Or the argument that “well, it wasn’t considered rape back then, but the PC police changed all that!” Is beyond ridiculous. Y’all need serious therapy. Glad to hear that Cosby is finally going down for this. Long overdue. forcibly harassing women sexually wasn't considered as rape in the early 2000s apparently |
  ｍａｌ'ｓ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｒａｃｃｏｏｎ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｂｏｏｐ ! ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｔａｎｔ ｙｅａｒ ｏｆ ２０２６ ｔｈｅＣＹＢＥＲ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｅ ａｆｔｅｒ ｍｅ ! |
PsychoticDave said: GamerDLM said: Of course his legal team would advise him against saying he gave it to them without their knowledge. That would be the nail in the coffin admission which no reasonable defense team could overcome you might as well be saying "well he didn't plead guilty so there was no proof". To which I would follow up did you check the testimony of the women involved in the trial or do you just completely take Bill Cosby at his word? Because he did admit to acquiring the Quaaludes with the intent to use them to have sex with women. That also still doesn't change the fact that giving them Quaaludes put them in a state in which they could not consent or resist. It's not nearly as strong as you think it is. It's basically a muscle relaxer / valium. They definitely still had the ability to consent or fight back. Or are you telling me Cosby is a doctor and gave each woman a certain amount to incapacitate her but not OD her? Because ODing on that shit is easy. I mean he had 30 years of practice with it and it's well known to have worse effects when mixed with alcohol. Again Quaaludes were famous as a date rape drug. It's also unreasonable to think he gave them 6+ pills which would be the range for a serious overdose. |
GamerDLMApr 29, 2018 11:33 AM
GamerDLM said: PsychoticDave said: It's not nearly as strong as you think it is. It's basically a muscle relaxer / valium. They definitely still had the ability to consent or fight back. Or are you telling me Cosby is a doctor and gave each woman a certain amount to incapacitate her but not OD her? Because ODing on that shit is easy. I mean he had 30 years of practice with it and it's well known to have worse effects when mixed with alcohol. Again Quaaludes were famous as a date rape drug. Getting someone to voluntarilly take a drug that lowers their inhibitors and causes them to make poor decisions is not the fault of the person who offered the drug. Regardless of the drug, there's still absolutely no evidence. The Judge simply thinks the woman is telling the truth. |
PsychoticDave said: GamerDLM said: I mean he had 30 years of practice with it and it's well known to have worse effects when mixed with alcohol. Again Quaaludes were famous as a date rape drug. Getting someone to voluntarilly take a drug that lowers their inhibitors and causes them to make poor decisions is not the fault of the person who offered the drug. Regardless of the drug, there's still absolutely no evidence. The Judge simply thinks the woman is telling the truth. Legally it is the fault of the person who offered them the drug. You're also inserting the side note/extra information that they were completely aware of what they were taking assuming that the women can't be trusted without reason. |
GamerDLM said: PsychoticDave said: Getting someone to voluntarilly take a drug that lowers their inhibitors and causes them to make poor decisions is not the fault of the person who offered the drug. Regardless of the drug, there's still absolutely no evidence. The Judge simply thinks the woman is telling the truth. Legally it is the fault of the person who offered them the drug. You're also inserting the side note that they were completely aware of what they were taking assuming that the women can't be trusted without reason. No one can be trusted without reason. No one should be charged with any crime until proven without a doubt that person is guilty. |
PsychoticDave said: GamerDLM said: Legally it is the fault of the person who offered them the drug. You're also inserting the side note that they were completely aware of what they were taking assuming that the women can't be trusted without reason. No one can be trusted without reason. No one should be charged with any crime until proven without a doubt that person is guilty. Except your expectations as you have clearly shown are the only way he can be proven guilty is if Bill Cosby himself pleaded guilty. It's a fact the encounter occurred, it's a fact Bill Cosby admitted to acquiring the drug with the intent to use it to have sex with women, if the women can be trusted then he mislead them into taking a sedative famous as a date rape drug, even if you don't trust the women under the legal definition of consent they were in a condition in which they were unable to consent thus making it rape and he was found guilty. |
GamerDLM said: PsychoticDave said: No one can be trusted without reason. No one should be charged with any crime until proven without a doubt that person is guilty. Except your expectations as you have clearly shown are the only way he can be proven guilty is if Bill Cosby himself pleaded guilty. It's a fact the encounter occurred, it's a fact Bill Cosby admitted to acquiring the drug with the intent to use it to have sex with women, if the women can be trusted then he mislead them into taking a sedative famous as a date rape drug, even if you don't trust the women under the legal definition of consent they were in a condition in which they were unable to consent thus making it rape and he was found guilty. Having intentions to do something is perfectly legal. Even intentions of raping a child. As long as it doesn't happen, it's still legal. Nothing has been proven. He was charged for nothing but he say-she say. |
PsychoticDave said: GamerDLM said: Except your expectations as you have clearly shown are the only way he can be proven guilty is if Bill Cosby himself pleaded guilty. It's a fact the encounter occurred, it's a fact Bill Cosby admitted to acquiring the drug with the intent to use it to have sex with women, if the women can be trusted then he mislead them into taking a sedative famous as a date rape drug, even if you don't trust the women under the legal definition of consent they were in a condition in which they were unable to consent thus making it rape and he was found guilty. Having intentions to do something is perfectly legal. Even intentions of raping a child. As long as it doesn't happen, it's still legal. Nothing has been proven. He was charged for nothing but he say-she say. Again you're ignoring the fact that the encounter did happen. Using your own comparison it's like saying a person had the intent to rape a child admitted to having sex with a child but claimed it was totally consensual. Which is actually an apt comparison because it also emphasizes the legal definitions of consent that are in place. |
GamerDLM said: PsychoticDave said: Having intentions to do something is perfectly legal. Even intentions of raping a child. As long as it doesn't happen, it's still legal. Nothing has been proven. He was charged for nothing but he say-she say. Again you're ignoring the fact that the encounter did happen. Using your own comparison it's like saying a person had the intent to rape a child admitted to having sex with a child but claimed it was totally consensual. Except I never said that in my example. Adding shit to my examples doesn't help your case. Regardless of if the encounter happened, it cannot be proven that it wasn't consentual. And waiting for years to do anything about it is stupid. Any smart woman would get a rapekit immediately and then Cosby would undeniably be guilty. Could also lie about the rape at that point too, but at least there would be evidence at all. |
PsychoticDave said: GamerDLM said: Again you're ignoring the fact that the encounter did happen. Using your own comparison it's like saying a person had the intent to rape a child admitted to having sex with a child but claimed it was totally consensual. Except I never said that in my example. Adding shit to my examples doesn't help your case. Regardless of if the encounter happened, it cannot be proven that it wasn't consentual. And waiting for years to do anything about it is stupid. Any smart woman would get a rapekit immediately and then Cosby would undeniably be guilty. Could also lie about the rape at that point too, but at least there would be evidence at all. Now who's the one adding information that wasn't given? She didn't wait initially they settled in civil court in which 13 women attended as witnesses for $3.38 million in 2005 a little over a year after the incident occurred. After that due to Bill Cosby publicly denying allegations he had broken the confidentiality portions of the agreement allowing the case to be reopened and criminal charges filed. |
GamerDLMApr 29, 2018 12:35 PM
| We should have been warier of his special BBQ sauce. |
| "No, son, you may not have your body pillow at the dinner table!" |
sekai- said: Hias said: Funny how the redpill/incel crowd still try to downplay this and go “oh, well only a few women were probably raped”. Or the argument that “well, it wasn’t considered rape back then, but the PC police changed all that!” Is beyond ridiculous. Y’all need serious therapy. Glad to hear that Cosby is finally going down for this. Long overdue. forcibly harassing women sexually wasn't considered as rape in the early 2000s apparently slipping drugs into their drinks and fucking them while they're unconscious wasn't rape apparently |
NudeBear said: sekai- said: forcibly harassing women sexually wasn't considered as rape in the early 2000s apparently slipping drugs into their drinks and fucking them while they're unconscious wasn't rape apparently smh sjw's and their bs rules alls he did was rape 50 women, he doesn't deserved to be charged for raping 50 women |
ｍａｌ'ｓ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｒａｃｃｏｏｎ ＣＹＢＥＲ ｂｏｏｐ ! ｆｒｏｍ ｔｈｅ ｄｉｓｔａｎｔ ｙｅａｒ ｏｆ ２０２６ ｔｈｅＣＹＢＥＲ ｐｏｌｉｃｅ ａｒｅ ａｆｔｅｒ ｍｅ ! |
sekai- said: NudeBear said: slipping drugs into their drinks and fucking them while they're unconscious wasn't rape apparently smh sjw's and their bs rules alls he did was rape 50 women, he doesn't deserved to be charged for raping 50 women cosby literally confessing that he used prescription drugs to incapacitate women is just a media smear job why do women always get a free pass its a war against men i tell you |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |