Mistrial declared in Cosby sex assault case after days of deliberations

[GOLDBUGGY]

53 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Sleazy insinuation. The only reason they didn't convict is because they were not allowed to show more than one victim. That would have shown the pattern. I don't believe anyone including his wife actually believes he isn't guilty.

Well actually I believe he isn't guilty, so you are wrong about that to.

 

To be honest I do think his wife knew of his extra marital affairs, but knowing that, and maybe even okaying that, doesn't mean she thought her hisband raped anybody. She probably knows him better than anyone else and if she wanted a Divorce, she to would stand to gain a lot from him if he was found guilty. Don't you think? Also, and as somebody else has already pointed out, with his celebrety status he didn't have to rape a pretty woman to get her in bed with him. So I honestly don't think even Crosby himself, or his lawyers, feel he raped anyone either. 

 

As I said I am thankful that the law has come a long way from hanging a Black Man simply because a White Womans says he raped her. Or at least I truly hope so. I am also thankful that there is no law out there in this country, or mine, where a man can go to jail for having many sex parteners, who they may be half his age, and even if he is married at that time. Otherwise most of us here would be in prison now. 

[WhyYouTalkMeBad]

Why would a wealthy Super star resort to drugging?

Doesn't make any sense he could have had what he wanted

[GOLDBUGGY]

14 minutes ago, WhyYouTalkMeBad said:

Why would a wealthy Super star resort to drugging?

Doesn't make any sense he could have had what he wanted

You should read some true stories from Gene Simmons of "Kiss", and what really goes on behind the scenes of some Rock Bands. Which included plenty of Drugs, Sex, and Rock & Roll.  All he had to do was look out of his hotel window and point to security which women in the crowd he wanted, and they went to go get them for him. But none of them were forced to go, even when most came. and although many may have taken drugs with them to.

 

But I do totally agree with you that a Super Star like Crosby didn't have to resort to getting them drugged to get his way with them. But it is also true that many people prefer drugs over alcohol. So I think this is the case with Crosby to. I never heard of a famous star who couldn't get drugs when he wanted to. But I do know of many famous stars who had drug problems. 

[Jingthing]

Why would a wealthy Super star resort to drugging?  

Doesn't make any sense he could have had what he wanted

 

Because he's a serial rapist. Duh. Also he hasn't really been a hot star for decades now.

 

As some one else obnoxiously brought up race, Cosby is as "innocent" as OJ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pdaz]

He's guilty as <deleted>, just a matter of time.

[Jingthing]

He's guilty as , just a matter of time.

I expect he will be on the retrial but if not then I expect the prosecution will give up.

[GOLDBUGGY]

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Because he's a serial rapist. Duh. Also he hasn't really been a hot star for decades now.

 

As some one else obnoxiously brought up race, Cosby is as "innocent" as OJ.

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the O.J Simpson Case he was let go because it was proved that the Police Tampered with Evidence. I think in most cases people felt he was guilty and justice wasn't served there. But on the other hand, if you have the Police Tampering, or in this case Planting, Evidence, then he was not going to get a fare trial. Everyone is entitled to at least that. 

 

The big difference is that Case and in the Cosby Case, is they have no evidence against Crosby. It is strictly her word against his word. Since she went to his house alone and willingly, while his wife was out of town, and also willingly accepted at least alcoholic drinks from him, and did not go to the Police shortly after the incident but in fact remained in contact with him on a friendly bases, long after this event, then you would have to give Cosby the benefit of the doubt. Or in this case "Reasonable Doubt".

 

To put it bluntly, there was a Mistrail in this Crosby Case simply because the Prosecution do not have enough Evidence to convict him. Even after leaking to the Press all of his past sexual adventures with other women, which he was never charged for. Or opening a locked Civil Suite, that Crosby willingly paid money to keep the accuser from dragging his then good name in the Mud.  

 

It seems a lot of people want to use his past history with other single women, and under simuliar circumstances, as grounds of showing his present guilt. But what people fail to  realize is that Crosby was never convicted or charged for any of those as a crime in either a Criminal Court, or Civil Court. They therefore shouldn't even be mentioning this and for sure not brought up in a Criminal Court, as everyone is innocent and until proven guilty. Which never happened to Crosby so far. 

 

Was Crosby a Womanizer? It sure appears his was, to the surprise of many including me. But there is no law against that. Gene Simmons of the Rock Band "Kiss" has openly admitted to sleeping with more than 4,800 Woman, during his time as a Rock Star, and he is not on trial now. Can we all assume that out of these 4,800 Women he slept with that all of them gave there total consent and when they were not under the influsence of drugs or alcohol? I don't think so???  

[Dipterocarp]

It does not matter that he is a celebrity who can get "free sex" he obviously suffers from a sex addiction /paraphilia where he gets off on doing it with drugged women. He used his celebrity to get them to private places, slipping them Quaaludes, voluntarily or not. I think that is rape, perhaps somebody with a better understanding of various US State law can say otherwise, also laws may have been different years ago.

 

Too many accusations to be co-incidental or a unfair gang-up on him. He also made self-incriminating statements in the past which have been suppressed. Just because there was a mistrial declared does not prove innocence. Prosecutor does not have his evidence in order. Look at OJ Simpson, guilty as sin.

 

Edited June 21, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[Thakkar]

Celebrity fame to blame ratio:

 

 

[Dipterocarp]

OMG, is that little "Rudy"? So that's not a sexual predator, it's  lovable TV Dad Dr. Heathcliffe Huxtable.

 

His attorney is a genius.

[GOLDBUGGY]

20 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

It does not matter that he is a celebrity who can get "free sex" he obviously suffers from a sex addiction /paraphilia where he gets off on doing it with drugged women. He used his celebrity to get them to private places, slipping them Quaaludes, voluntarily or not. I think that is rape, perhaps somebody with a better understanding of various US State law can say otherwise, also laws may have been different years ago.

 

Too many accusations to be co-incidental or a unfair gang-up on him. He also made self-incriminating statements in the past which have been suppressed. Just because there was a mistrial declared does not prove innocence. Prosecutor does not have his evidence in order. Look at OJ Simpson, guilty as sin.

 

"He used his celebrity to get them to private places, "???

 

You make is sound like his "Celebrity Status" to get women to private places as the same as him using a gun or knife!

 

Lets make something perfectly clear here! None of these woman claimed they were forced to go with him to his house or hotel room, and sit alone and drink alcohol with him, when his wife was not present or out of town. They were never forced either Physically or Mentally to do anything! They claimed they were seduced by drugs, and not by force! They all were of adult age and all went there of there own free will and willingly. Which in my book, and since they were not forced, knew what they could expect from a married man of his status and with his wife away. Which makes them all willing partners. 

 

Who cares about the number of women he may have had over many years of being a Big Star? There is no law against that and he was never charged for any of that. It goes with the Territory of being a Big Star! Elvis Presly wasn't faithful to his wife either, and look how good she looked when she was younger. So get over it! 

[Jingthing]

A hung jury does not mean he is innocent. 

Bring it on again and get it done. 

[Grubster]

On 6/20/2017 at 6:38 PM, WhyYouTalkMeBad said:

Why would a wealthy Super star resort to drugging?

Doesn't make any sense he could have had what he wanted

Rape is not about the ability to find consensual partners, its about power, and having the one that you can't have.

[Grubster]

On 6/21/2017 at 2:58 AM, GOLDBUGGY said:

In the O.J Simpson Case he was let go because it was proved that the Police Tampered with Evidence. I think in most cases people felt he was guilty and justice wasn't served there. But on the other hand, if you have the Police Tampering, or in this case Planting, Evidence, then he was not going to get a fare trial. Everyone is entitled to at least that. 

 

The big difference is that Case and in the Cosby Case, is they have no evidence against Crosby. It is strictly her word against his word. Since she went to his house alone and willingly, while his wife was out of town, and also willingly accepted at least alcoholic drinks from him, and did not go to the Police shortly after the incident but in fact remained in contact with him on a friendly bases, long after this event, then you would have to give Cosby the benefit of the doubt. Or in this case "Reasonable Doubt".

 

To put it bluntly, there was a Mistrail in this Crosby Case simply because the Prosecution do not have enough Evidence to convict him. Even after leaking to the Press all of his past sexual adventures with other women, which he was never charged for. Or opening a locked Civil Suite, that Crosby willingly paid money to keep the accuser from dragging his then good name in the Mud.  

 

It seems a lot of people want to use his past history with other single women, and under simuliar circumstances, as grounds of showing his present guilt. But what people fail to  realize is that Crosby was never convicted or charged for any of those as a crime in either a Criminal Court, or Civil Court. They therefore shouldn't even be mentioning this and for sure not brought up in a Criminal Court, as everyone is innocent and until proven guilty. Which never happened to Crosby so far. 

 

Was Crosby a Womanizer? It sure appears his was, to the surprise of many including me. But there is no law against that. Gene Simmons of the Rock Band "Kiss" has openly admitted to sleeping with more than 4,800 Woman, during his time as a Rock Star, and he is not on trial now. Can we all assume that out of these 4,800 Women he slept with that all of them gave there total consent and when they were not under the influsence of drugs or alcohol? I don't think so???  

How long did it take you to admit that maybe at least one of the thousands of catholic priests was guilty of rape, nearly every victim didn't come forward for many years? Have you ever been raped and know how it effects you mentally? Funny none of Gene Simmons lovers have filed suit against him, he has a lot more money also.

[ddavidovsky]

The trial, and all those like it, is a farce and a travesty, ruining lives, causing damage far out of proportion to any harm caused.

In fact, no harm was caused - only something 'psychological' and unproveable.

The women should have taken legal action at the time. They didn't.

If they weren't interested in him they should have acted a tad more responsibly than to get themselves in an amber light situation.

Such situations rely on extremely complex and subtle social cues - *no one who wasn't in the room can judge*.

Mores change over the years; everyone has a victim-complex now, for every little thing; it's now not a fair judgement to make.

 

What the defence lawyers always omit to point out: These women are just seeking sympathy as a means of justifying themselves for all their other failures in life. That's enough motivation for them to bring up these old cases - in fact, from their point of view, the older the better, as it's harder to disprove..

[Dipterocarp]

3 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

"He used his celebrity to get them to private places, "???

 

You make is sound like his "Celebrity Status" to get women to private places as the same as him using a gun or knife!

 

Lets make something perfectly clear here! None of these woman claimed they were forced to go with him to his house or hotel room, and sit alone and drink alcohol with him, when his wife was not present or out of town. They were never forced either Physically or Mentally to do anything! They claimed they were seduced by drugs, and not by force! They all were of adult age and all went there of there own free will and willingly. Which in my book, and since they were not forced, knew what they could expect from a married man of his status and with his wife away. Which makes them all willing partners. 

 

Who cares about the number of women he may have had over many years of being a Big Star? There is no law against that and he was never charged for any of that. It goes with the Territory of being a Big Star! Elvis Presly wasn't faithful to his wife either, and look how good she looked when she was younger. So get over it! 

He procures  'luudes to drug women to get a leg over while they are unresponsive . So that is Ok because they went there of there own free will, "???   Pure victim blaming.

 

Pull your pants up black people Cosby is a debased two-faced serial sex predator. I hope he dies in jail, broke.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Dipterocarp

[Jingthing]

He procures  'luudes to drug women to get a leg over while they are unresponsive . So that is Ok because they went there of there own free will, "???   Pure victim blaming.
 
Pull your pants up black people Cosby is a debased two-faced serial sex predator. I hope he dies in jail, broke.

This isn't a race issue at all.
Yes his behavior is indefensible.

[ddavidovsky]

I have just provided all the defence needed (post 45). Case closed.

 

We need more 'victim-blaming'. The very concept promotes cry-baby mentality. There's enough evidence now that there is a tremendous moral hazard in pandering to people's newfound craving for sympathy.

[Jingthing]

I have just provided all the defence needed (post 45). Case closed.
 
We need more 'victim-blaming'. The very concept promotes cry-baby mentality. There's enough evidence now that there is a tremendous moral hazard in pandering to people's newfound craving for sympathy.

Blaming the victim is not a defense.

[GOLDBUGGY]

4 hours ago, Grubster said:

How long did it take you to admit that maybe at least one of the thousands of catholic priests was guilty of rape, nearly every victim didn't come forward for many years? Have you ever been raped and know how it effects you mentally? Funny none of Gene Simmons lovers have filed suit against him, he has a lot more money also.

Are you comparing a Child, who was held almost a prisoner in a Catholic Boarding School and no place to run and hide, to this Woman, this Accussrer, who was in her early thirties when this took place, and had every opportunity to not even go there, or tell somebody later?

 

Yes! You are comparing this Woman to a Child!

 

No! I have never been raped! So does this fact make Cosby Guilty of Rape? Your Logic is totally senseless!

 

But what I do know for sure that if I was ever raped, I certainly would not be friends with this person long after that event and like she was, and not tell anyone for 12 years, like her. Of this I am sure!  

[Grubster]

2 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

Are you comparing a Child, who was held almost a prisoner in a Catholic Boarding School and no place to run and hide, to this Woman, this Accussrer, who was in her early thirties when this took place, and had every opportunity to not even go there, or tell somebody later?

 

Yes! You are comparing this Woman to a Child!

 

No! I have never been raped! So does this fact make Cosby Guilty of Rape? Your Logic is totally senseless!

 

But what I do know for sure that if I was ever raped, I certainly would not be friends with this person long after that event and like she was, and not tell anyone for 12 years, like her. Of this I am sure!  

Yes I am comparing a child to an adult, in case you didn't know children are people too and thousands of those rape victims had a happy home life, but were being raped in church. Yes she had the opportunity to not go there, so I guess in your world if a woman visits you then you are entitled to sex with her, even if you have to drug her to do it.

No you do not know what you would do if you were raped as you never have been. Your assumptions are totally senseless and very uninformed of how many rape victims never come forward as for some reason they feel deep shame as if they did something wrong.

[ddavidovsky]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Blaming the victim is not a defense.

Where's your logic? It's the only defence necessary if the accusation is unfounded, unreasonable or unprovable.

[GOLDBUGGY]

57 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Yes I am comparing a child to an adult, in case you didn't know children are people too and thousands of those rape victims had a happy home life, but were being raped in church. Yes she had the opportunity to not go there, so I guess in your world if a woman visits you then you are entitled to sex with her, even if you have to drug her to do it.

No you do not know what you would do if you were raped as you never have been. Your assumptions are totally senseless and very uninformed of how many rape victims never come forward as for some reason they feel deep shame as if they did something wrong.

So with all that shame of her not coming forward when it happened, why now come forward and after 10 or 12 years and do it now? What has changed since then, beside Cosby giving her a few hundred thousands dollars so she would keep quiet about her having sex with him while he was still married and hurting his then good reputation. Which even then she could not keep quet about it now 

 

Or why try to remain friends with him and call him on the telephone long after this even, or try to go back stage to meet him with friends? Maybe Crosby just tired of her phone calls and tried to break up all contact with her, and this pissed her off? 

 

I just Love how people like you try to make it look like Cosby jumped out of some bush and raped a young girl. As you compare a helpless 9 year old girl to a grown up 30 something year old woman. Cosby invited her to his home when his wife was away, to have at least alcoholic drinks with him in the privacy of his home, and she came willingly. This is a known fact. 

 

How do you think Crosby got her to do that and come over that evening in the forst place? Ask her if she wanted to see his Puppies? Or drugs by saying, do you want some Candy? Come On Man! Think about it! Or maybe you think she thinks she was coming over to his house in a sexy dress, when he was alone, to drink alcohol with him and play baskeball with him in his private basketball court, at night time? 

 

 

[Dipterocarp]

5 hours ago, Jingthing said:

This isn't a race issue at all.
Yes his behavior is indefensible.

I don't think he appointed himself as all that arbiter of morality of the African American community but us Conservatives accepted him as such. He called specifically on people from his own community to take personal responsibility for their choices, how about for his own crimes? A big phony.

 

For the victim blamers on this thread he admitted to getting Qualuudes for the purpose of drugging women. The pills have been banned in the US for decades, too much abuse, no medical purpose as alternatives are available. He is a celebrity with millions of dollars. A comic genius who could be funny without being vulgar, when others could do nothing other. If he wanted sex all he had to do was pick up a phone and gorgeous escorts would bang him for  a few dollars or groupies would gladly do so for free. He chose to rape. Personal responsibility, so rot in jail I say.

 

 

[RobFord]

Why would a wealthy Super star resort to drugging?

Doesn't make any sense he could have had what he wanted

Because he gets off on it.

Hey, hey, hey, next stop necrophilia.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[GOLDBUGGY]

13 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Blaming the victim is not a defense.

Blaming the "Accuser" is certainly a Defense, and in fact the only Defense Crosby had!

 

Look at it this way, and the way a Defense Lawyer would look at it.

 

In a case like this you don't have Witnessess lined up to testify as nobody else was there. You don't want to bring in Character Witnessess for Crosby, as there testimony could be more damaging than helpful. For example ask them questions which Crosby could have confided in them which he did not want to make it publicly known. 

 

Putting Crosby on the Stand is also a bad idea. Let's face it! He is an Old Man and these events took place a long time ago. If he forgets some detail, or by mistake gives them a wrong answer, this would make him look bad. It also opens the door to further questions, such as past sexual experiences, which up to now have been barred from the Court Room.   

 

So right now, the jury only had Andrea Constand’s truthfulness to consider, and the prosecution needs to prove her truthfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. Which is a very high standard. The defense only needs reasonable doubts about her truthfulness, which they only need one person to have some questions about whether she’s telling the truth or not. That makes sex crimes very difficult to prosecute because of this type of strategy.

 

So the question is whether "Andrea Constand" can be believed beyond a reasonable doubt, or not, as that’s Cosby’s entire defense. And here it appears that his lawyer has a very good argument about the credibility of the complaining witness. He’s got her on inconsistencies on the dates. He’s got her accompanying him to the casino after the event. He’s got some discrepancies in her account to law-enforcement officers. So obviously he’s resting his case entirely on that.

 

That strategy seemed to work, as he now has a Mistrial. I personally don't approve of any of this or what he may have done with younger women while married. But his case is very important to freedom and rights. The last thing this world needs now is woman lining up in the Courts to Sue Men because they went to bed with them after too many Alcoholic Drinks, or Smoking some Pot. 

 

Maybe Crosby isn't so innocent. But what I know for sure is this woman is no angel either. She knew full well what may have happened before she entered his house that night. She may even have hoped it wou;d happen, to better her own career. I can't comment on whether she agreed to take drugs or not, as this can't be proved. But I can comment on the fact she did agree to take alcohol with him, which is also a drug. I have known some women who would pass out after only a few drinks of alcohol to. 

[GOLDBUGGY]

10 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

I don't think he appointed himself as all that arbiter of morality of the African American community but us Conservatives accepted him as such. He called specifically on people from his own community to take personal responsibility for their choices, how about for his own crimes? A big phony.

 

For the victim blamers on this thread he admitted to getting Qualuudes for the purpose of drugging women. The pills have been banned in the US for decades, too much abuse, no medical purpose as alternatives are available. He is a celebrity with millions of dollars. A comic genius who could be funny without being vulgar, when others could do nothing other. If he wanted sex all he had to do was pick up a phone and gorgeous escorts would bang him for  a few dollars or groupies would gladly do so for free. He chose to rape. Personal responsibility, so rot in jail I say.

 

 

It appears that you only read the Headlines about Crosby being guilty and even before he had his day in Court. You probably never heard or read the Accuser Story (Andrea Constand) yet, so let me fill you in on some details. 

 

Ms. Constand admitted to going to Crosby's House that night, while his wife was away. Pretty dfficult to accuse somebody of Rape if they were not together. But the big question is why did she go, and dressed in what is described as a Sexy Dress? 

 

While as her story goes, she went to Crosby's Home that night to seek advice on whether or not she should quit her job in the Temple Athletic Department. Really? Was Crosby so close to her then and like her Father, that she felt a need in hop in a Taxi and drive clear across town, to visit in his home, while his wife was away, to ask him if she should quit her job or not? Accepting a glass of wine from him in the process!

 

I mean if that was me I would just ask a good friend what he thinks over the telephone, or an email, or talk about it the next time we planned to meet. I certainly wouldn't get in my car and drive clear across town at night to talk to him about it. When I have a telephone. I referred to him as being a good and close friend of mine. Which at this time Crosby wasn't such a Good Friend to her at all. In fact he hardly knew her then. 

 

Then she says he offered her pills. He did not slip them in her drink, as many have said. She said he just gave them to her and she took them, because he told her to. Not under any threat but only because he said it would make her feel better. This woman was 31 years old at this time, and not 10 years old. Which woman would accept pills from a stranger. From a Married Man while in his house drinking wine and while his wife was away? Even my young daughter knows better than this! 

 

Then after this Sexual Assault, as she calls it, she says nothing to nobody. I guess she quits her job and moves back in with her mother. Again for a year after that time she says nothing, but then says this event started to bother her. Getting Flashbacks all of a sudden and Night Mares. Sure she does!

 

So what does she do then? Does she go to the Police? Does she seek help for her distress? No! Of course not! She decided to go back to Crosby's House again to meet with him. To meet with the Man she claims Raped Her! So why? Well she says she wanted to confront him about that night. Again she couldn't call him on the telephone to do that or even take somebody like her mother. But again she felt she needed to meet with him alone in his house while his wife was away.

 

But there is also a funny side to her story. On this night she claims she returned to confront Crosby about him raping her, she asks him for free tickets to Crosby's Comedy Shows. She admits that in Court! Can you believe that? Well I couldn't either, until I read this myself from media court documents. 

 

No! I haven't been raped before! But which woman in her right mind, and a year after this crime was suppose to have taken place, that she never reported to Police, would go back to the same place were this crime was supposed to have been committed, to meet the same Rapist alone, and then ask for free tickets to see his show? So she could go watch with family and friends and maybe be allowed to go back stage to meet him in person. 

 

Her story has more holes in it than Swiss Cheese! No small wonder there is a Mistrial here! And yet there is people here who want to put a 79 Year Old Man in Prison for the rest of his life, based on her testimony alone. Where one Female Lawyer is also handling 39 other so called sexual offense to legally sue Crosby for these so called crimes, Crosby was accused of committing on them but never charge for a single one of them.

 

Now I have seen everything here!  

 

  

[Grubster]

19 hours ago, GOLDBUGGY said:

So with all that shame of her not coming forward when it happened, why now come forward and after 10 or 12 years and do it now? What has changed since then, beside Cosby giving her a few hundred thousands dollars so she would keep quiet about her having sex with him while he was still married and hurting his then good reputation. Which even then she could not keep quet about it now 

 

Or why try to remain friends with him and call him on the telephone long after this even, or try to go back stage to meet him with friends? Maybe Crosby just tired of her phone calls and tried to break up all contact with her, and this pissed her off? 

 

I just Love how people like you try to make it look like Cosby jumped out of some bush and raped a young girl. As you compare a helpless 9 year old girl to a grown up 30 something year old woman. Cosby invited her to his home when his wife was away, to have at least alcoholic drinks with him in the privacy of his home, and she came willingly. This is a known fact. 

 

How do you think Crosby got her to do that and come over that evening in the forst place? Ask her if she wanted to see his Puppies? Or drugs by saying, do you want some Candy? Come On Man! Think about it! Or maybe you think she thinks she was coming over to his house in a sexy dress, when he was alone, to drink alcohol with him and play baskeball with him in his private basketball court, at night time? 

 

 

You are using the same defense those baby rapers used, good on ya, have a nice life.

[ilostmypassword]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:59 PM, ddavidovsky said:

The trial, and all those like it, is a farce and a travesty, ruining lives, causing damage far out of proportion to any harm caused.

In fact, no harm was caused - only something 'psychological' and unproveable.

The women should have taken legal action at the time. They didn't.

If they weren't interested in him they should have acted a tad more responsibly than to get themselves in an amber light situation.

Such situations rely on extremely complex and subtle social cues - *no one who wasn't in the room can judge*.

Mores change over the years; everyone has a victim-complex now, for every little thing; it's now not a fair judgement to make.

 

What the defence lawyers always omit to point out: These women are just seeking sympathy as a means of justifying themselves for all their other failures in life. That's enough motivation for them to bring up these old cases - in fact, from their point of view, the older the better, as it's harder to disprove..

On 6/22/2017 at 6:29 PM, ddavidovsky said:

I have just provided all the defence needed (post 45). Case closed.

 

We need more 'victim-blaming'. The very concept promotes cry-baby mentality. There's enough evidence now that there is a tremendous moral hazard in pandering to people's newfound craving for sympathy.

You know I had my doubts before. But the totally unique points you have penned are clearly conclusive. Maybe next you could reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity.