I’m sick of this moronic, reductive straw-man argument.

The problem is that Western standards generally involve immediately and completely buckling to any special interest that even looks in your direction. Eventually little concessions become big concessions, until all we’re left with is bland, neutral content that’s as stilted and boring as it is inoffensive.

Well, since it is a jury trial I suppose technically they might convict based on anything, no matter how legally insufficient.

I guess that’s true, but it doesn’t really apply to this case, since there’s no actual evidence.

I’m a little curious, what actual evidence did they have that he was guilty? From what I’ve seen this entire case was a “he said, she said,” with the “she said” being the more believable story.

Doesn’t matter who’s fault it is; sitting on something like that for years DESTROYS your credibility. I’m not sure why people are surprised that there was no conviction. Cosby may actually be guilty, but this case was a dumpster fire for the prosecution. They had nothing.

It’s not about believing “it’s all a lie,” it’s about whether or not it’s possible that she’s lying. It’s not enough to accuse someone of rape and have a believable set of circumstances backing you up, you need hard evidence.

He said the sex was consensual, and the only evidence is her word and a series of events that, while circumstantially damning, doesn’t prove what actually happened.

You people really have no idea what constitutes evidence, do you? Maybe she slept with him because he’s Bill Cosby? Nah, women only sleep with people they’re attracted to; they would never put out just because someone is a celebrity or has money.

Notspam

Spam

Nah

Not quite.

Die of cancer, eh? Edgy stuff, you kids are just so badass nowadays.

So, you’re really going to try to call me out for responding, as you continue responding, and claim I’M the one lacking self-awareness.

I’m actually pretty happy with how this played out.

I’ve been busy the last 2 days and got home late. What’s your point?

Hey, it’s a better investment of my ego than you defending hack journalism with every ounce of your being. I hope Kotaku’s writers appreciate you standing firm to make sure they never receive any criticism for sucking at their jobs.

It’s not even that you’re completely avoiding addressing the actual topic, it’s that you’re rambling incoherently. At this point I can only assume you’re having a mild stroke.

So, you completely missed the point, didn’t understand a word I said, and just strung together words in a way you thought made sense, only because you felt you had to respond?