Let's do this.
What does that have to do with consensual sex?
I'm not quite sure. In fact, in the post you are replying to, I asked how my statement related to it being consensual sex. You still have not explained this.
Or reference your post.
Which is what I asked you to do, you still have not referenced my original post and pointed out how I was claiming that sex was consensual just because they took drugs together knowingly.
You then proceed to quote me by posting
"First of all, contextually this statement can be read in one of two ways. You can either be implying that by taking part in drinking with a person, you are not consenting. I never made a claim that this is consent."
And follow it with
"He admitted to agreeing to party with women, and supplying them with Quaaludes which they knowingly ingested."
You literally prove my point by copy pasting my statement verbatim. My description of testimony which Bill Cosby gave in court contains no mention or implication of consent whatsoever. It is simply a description of something that Bill Cosby said.
One is an affirmation and one is a negation. By definition of the law you're precluded from driving because your judgment and abilities are impaired. The other requires you consent to sex. When you're roofied you're literally incapable of consenting.
Okay so what you're saying is by definition of the law, you are told that if you drive drunk, you have to live with your decision because you can't just say "I was too drunk to be thinking clearly". You then follow with "The other requires you consent to sex" That is literally what I said. If you actively consent while drinking, you are still accountable for those actions while you were drunk, just as in the drunk driving scenario.
When you're roofied you're literally incapable of consenting.
So just so I understand you clearly, you have evidence that Bill Cosby lied under oath (as did the women in question), and actually supplied them with Flunitrazepam (rohypnol) and not Quaaludes? Because you can't just swap in roofies for any drug and act like they have the same or even similar effects. He did not Roofie any women. That would imply slipping something that knocks them unconscious into their drink which is explicitly NOT WHAT HE ADMITTED. He admitted to taking Quaaludes, a party drug, with women who were partying with him and injected party drugs knowingly. If he had given them cocaine, or MDMA, or alchohol you wouldn't just say "when you're roofied blah blah blah" because it makes no sense whatsoever.
You said you were blackout drunk, which would mean you don't remember the events clearly or at all.
Has nothing to do with quaaludes which are a ridiculous seditive
I like how you just jump to this point because you have no counter arguments to the points I present before that statement. "What if the other party was more drunk than you were when you had sex? Could they have given consent? Were you both raping each other? What if you sexually initiated with them and -they- provided enthusiastic consent after your initiation and sex was had?" The answers you give to these questions are relevant to the discussion, and shed light on your preconceptions. You conveniently ignore them because it's easier for you.
If two consenting adults drink alcohol and have consensual sex, that is not rape.
If two consenting adults do cocaine together and have consensual sex, that is not rape.
If two consenting adults do quaaludes together and have consensual sex, that is not rape.
It's funny because a few lines down you claim that I equate drugs and it's comical, when you just equated a popular party drugs to Flunitrazepam.
"It assumes predatory behavior in every sexual encounter"
He settled with a lot of women, in a court of law. Shocking, he raped women.
You totally didn't jump subjects there at all. You are showing how your preconceptions and biases are affecting the matter being discussed. I was discussing the fact that billions of humans take part in consensual sex while under the influence of a variety of drugs and you jump to Bill Cosby being a rapist because of court settlements. Court settlements do not imply guilt. Court settlements happen for a litany of reasons every day. You can draw whatever conclusions from court settlements that you want, but they are not actual evidence of anything, and bringing them up at this point in discussion makes no sense.
"It doesn't take into account that literally BILLIONS of humans have sex while intoxicated by various substances." Except Methaqualone is a fucking sedative used to treat insomniacs. It literally doesn't account for a beer or two or a joint. Equating all drugs like you're stupidly doing is comical. It's cool, a cigarette is just like chloroform because "reasons."
I know what Quaaludes are, explaining that they are a sedative does nothing. Using the word fucking does not further explain anything, you are losing composure and logical discussion. You are pretty clearly demonstrating your lack of understanding of drugs. "It's cool, a cigarette is just like chloroform because "reasons."" You are straw manning again, I never made such a claim. But it's funny you jump to chloroform because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Chloroform does not just knock someone out like they show on television. One would have to inhale it directly for over five minutes in order to pass out. Feel free to educate yourself, I'll provide a source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroform
Relevant text:
However, it is nearly impossible to incapacitate someone using chloroform.[25] It takes at least five minutes of inhaling an item soaked in chloroform to render a person unconscious.
What's comical is your complete lack of understanding of drugs, and having sex while on drugs. You literally have equated Quaaludes to rohypnol and cigarettes to chloroform, an anesthetic which is not actually used in raped as portrayed in popular culture.
"It's like in your world the only reason two adults could possibly be doing drugs together is because one of the parties is trying to rape the other."
Except double digit women accused him of raping him, and he went on the stand for the subject and settled out of court. He also had several women sign non-disclosure agreements. Seems reasonable.
I didn't know double digit women accused him of raping him. All of these women have been claiming that Bill Cosby raped himself? I had no idea!
Your inaccuracies aside, you are again showing your biases. This original discussion was pertaining to specific testimony by Bill Cosby, in which he did not admit do doing anything illegal, he admitted to having consensual sex with someone while they were both under the influence of drugs. You did not read this testimony, and you have no interest in discussing relevant facts to that case. You instead took your prior reading of claims by his victims and projected it onto this case. That is not how law or logical analysis works.
"It isn't remotely possible that both parties had engaged in flirting, or touching, or even verbal discussion about consensual sex prior to ingesting said substances." Lol.
I think this basically sums up our entire discussion here. Logical points are dismissed entirely by your biases. This specific woman could come out tomorrow and explain that she actually asked him to have sex with her before ingesting the quaaludes, gave consent in the moment, and you would still brush it off "because reasons" as you like to say.
You're right, it's why 20+ women claim the same story that he raped them.
What's up Bill Cosby, why are you raping women?
I will close by quoting literally the first line of my post which you replied to. "I am not a Bill Cosby defender. I am not saying he did not commit sexual assaults."
It's funny, when you are presented with calm, rational discussion (by someone who agrees with you about the sexual assaults) you respond with strawman-ing, analogies that don't make sense, emotional appeals, and finally by calling me Bill Cosby. You address only points that seem convenient to you, and ignore other points.
Overall, 10/10 discussion. Thank you.