True story.
http://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape+rape
QuoteI know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like "You know what, this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail, I'm not staying", so that's why he left.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8277176.stm
Quote"I am shocked that any man of 76, whether distinguished or not, should have been treated in such a fashion"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/09/the_outrageous_arrest_of_roman.html
QuotePolanski, who panicked and fled the U.S. during that trial, has been pursued by this case for 30 years, during which time he has never returned to America, has never returned to the United Kingdom, has avoided many other countries and has never been convicted of anything else. He did commit a crime, but he has paid for the crime in many, many ways: In notoriety, in lawyers' fees, in professional stigma. He could not return to Los Angeles to receive his recent Oscar. He cannot visit Hollywood to direct or cast a film.
Yes, its really Polanski who is the victim here. After all, child rape isn't a very serious crime, and he's already been punished, by having to run away to Switzerland to avoid uh, being punished.
(And right after I noted that the bastard's arrest made me happy! How's that for synchronicity? :lulz:)
Clearly, Luc Besson disagrees with many of his peers:
Quote from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/roman-polanski/6245219/Roman-Polanski-backlash-as-Whoopi-Goldberg-says-director-didnt-commit-rape-rape.htmlThe French director Luc Besson refused to sign the petition calling for Polanski's release.
He said: "I have a lot of affection for him, he is a man that I like very much but nobody should be above the law. I don't know the details of this case, but I think that when you don't show up for trial, you are taking a risk."
The asshole should have been jailed three decades ago. Coverage of this bullshit has been on and off since then.
Also, :lulz: @ the 73-years-old remark.
:vom: :vom: :vom: :vom: :vom:
Has anyone checked to see how Uncle BadTouch is taking the news?
Well, he WAS jailed.
He had a deal with the judge, and there was...you know...politicking. I'm not saying his jail sentence was FAIR...what he did to that girl was awful, badwrong and should've been punished to the fullest extent regardless of how famous he was. The judge in this case was a fucknut, though, and could've done more with Polanski but liked the spotlight on himself this case gave him.
I wonder what the law on sex with minors was in the 70's... and if he will be tried under that law, or the current sex offender laws?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 04:16:48 PM
I wonder what the law on sex with minors was in the 70's... and if he will be tried under that law, or the current sex offender laws?
It wasn't just sex with minors, he drugged and raped her vaginally and anally while she pleaded no.
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on September 30, 2009, 04:20:30 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 04:16:48 PM
I wonder what the law on sex with minors was in the 70's... and if he will be tried under that law, or the current sex offender laws?
It wasn't just sex with minors, he drugged and raped her vaginally and anally while she pleaded no.
Whoa.... what's the source for
that?
I mean, I know the first bit, but the second?
...and she was 13. Her mother--I want to blame her a LOT for this--she was one of these failed-starlet moms who hung out at stoner Hollywood parties trying to get a gig, get laid, etc. She put her kid in the limelight as fast as she could and then THIS happened to her.
"Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[33][34][35] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[36] Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. [37]"
Cant remember where I saw this, and its not on his wiki page, it might have been hers.
It was from her testimony as far as I know. She has asked for the charges to be dropped since, incidentally he paid her a huge sum of money
Gotcha.
Moral of the story: Nothing ever good goes down at Jack Nicholson's house when you're 13 years old in the 70s.
He got her VERY high and very disoriented. She couldn't fight him off and begged to be left alone by him when he started in on her, from her interview with the cops afterward.
I saw that HBO documentary on the whole thing--it came on HBO eerily just a couple of months before he was arrested...
Quote from: LMNO on September 30, 2009, 04:27:06 PM
Gotcha.
Moral of the story: Nothing ever good goes down at Jack Nicholson's house when you're 13 years old in the 70s.
Yeah, see my comment on the mother. Part of me wants to believe she really wanted something like this to happen...but that's my evil jaded side I try to rarely listen to.
Quote from: Jenne on September 30, 2009, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 30, 2009, 04:27:06 PM
Gotcha.
Moral of the story: Nothing ever good goes down at Jack Nicholson's house when you're 13 years old in the 70s.
Yeah, see my comment on the mother. Part of me wants to believe she really wanted something like this to happen...but that's my evil jaded side I try to rarely listen to.
Makes sense, there is probably a lot of money in it. :|
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on September 30, 2009, 04:32:03 PM
Quote from: Jenne on September 30, 2009, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: LMNO on September 30, 2009, 04:27:06 PM
Gotcha.
Moral of the story: Nothing ever good goes down at Jack Nicholson's house when you're 13 years old in the 70s.
Yeah, see my comment on the mother. Part of me wants to believe she really wanted something like this to happen...but that's my evil jaded side I try to rarely listen to.
Makes sense, there is probably a lot of money in it. :|
There is. Very sad.
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on September 30, 2009, 04:25:21 PM
"Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[33][34][35] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[36] Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. [37]"
Cant remember where I saw this, and its not on his wiki page, it might have been hers.
It was from her testimony as far as I know. She has asked for the charges to be dropped since, incidentally he paid her a huge sum of money
So this makes for an interesting quandary.
If the person affected by the acct asks for the prosecution to stop... should it? I saw that she made the comment again that she was unhappy that this had happened... at what point does the law go beyond the victims wishes? It seems that there are a couple arguments here:
1. He's a rapist he might do it again.
2. He must pay for his crime.
3. He skipped out on his court hearing.
The first one seems kinda pointless now... Either he HAS done it again over the past 30 years and kept it quiet, or he hasn't. If he hasn't then its unlikely that he would start now. The second one has some legitimacy, but if he gave some form of restitution to the girl, then hasn't he already 'paid' for his crime? The third one seems pretty straightforward, skipping out on the judge is never smart... but then thats a contempt charge, not a rape charge...
In one sense, I like seeing the law applied to everyone, even if it takes time... on the other hand, this feels a bit like someone trying to make a splash/get points/look good or something, perhaps a bit more than Lady Justice cracking him in the skull with her scales.
IMO, they can hang him for all I care, I mean he raped a kid after all!
Perhaps someone should Do Something About This.
I wonder if Polanski and John Phillips ever partied together? :|
No, John Phillips kept it closer to home. Wasn't his kid an adult by then? I've only heard about the part where he had sex with her the day she got married or something like that. No less creepy, of course.
I forget how much jailtime Polanski did up at Chino...I think it was 6 mos. I should look that up, I guess.
ETA: the quote that struck me as lolwut? yesterday from npr's report was one of the lawyers supporting his arrest said something like "Rape isn't a crime against the victim but a crime against the law" or some such weirdness. I should look that up to, lol.
http://www.screenjunkies.com/movienews/roman-polanski-reviews-hannah-montana
Har, no, he only did 42 days as a psych eval at Chino. 42 days. Not that long. But I think the judge was working on longer sentencing when Polanski fled.
Quote from: Rumckle on September 30, 2009, 05:05:19 PM
http://www.screenjunkies.com/movienews/roman-polanski-reviews-hannah-montana
Ewww, just ewww....
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on September 30, 2009, 04:25:21 PM
"Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[33][34][35] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[36] Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. [37]"
Cant remember where I saw this, and its not on his wiki page, it might have been hers.
It was from her testimony as far as I know. She has asked for the charges to be dropped since, incidentally he paid her a huge sum of money
So this makes for an interesting quandary.
If the person affected by the acct asks for the prosecution to stop... should it? I saw that she made the comment again that she was unhappy that this had happened... at what point does the law go beyond the victims wishes? It seems that there are a couple arguments here:
1. He's a rapist he might do it again.
2. He must pay for his crime.
3. He skipped out on his court hearing.
The first one seems kinda pointless now... Either he HAS done it again over the past 30 years and kept it quiet, or he hasn't. If he hasn't then its unlikely that he would start now. The second one has some legitimacy, but if he gave some form of restitution to the girl, then hasn't he already 'paid' for his crime? The third one seems pretty straightforward, skipping out on the judge is never smart... but then thats a contempt charge, not a rape charge...
In one sense, I like seeing the law applied to everyone, even if it takes time... on the other hand, this feels a bit like someone trying to make a splash/get points/look good or something, perhaps a bit more than Lady Justice cracking him in the skull with her scales.
IMO, they can hang him for all I care, I mean he raped a kid after all!
I don't see it as paying for someones crime, there is no such thing as justice, the sentences are carried out as much to set the standard of the community as they do to appease the victim. Its never been about balance, its about regulating the community.
Arguments against the wishes of the victims: stockholm Syndrom and to a lesser extent what happened in Seven Brides for seven brothers.
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on September 30, 2009, 08:15:15 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 04:35:15 PM
Quote from: ☂Faust☂ on September 30, 2009, 04:25:21 PM
"Geimer testified that Polanski performed various sexual acts on her[33][34][35] after giving her a combination of champagne and quaaludes.[36] Specifically, Geimer's testimony was that Polanski kissed her, performed cunnilingus on her, penetrated her vaginally, and then penetrated her anally, each time after being told 'no' and being asked to stop. [37]"
Cant remember where I saw this, and its not on his wiki page, it might have been hers.
It was from her testimony as far as I know. She has asked for the charges to be dropped since, incidentally he paid her a huge sum of money
So this makes for an interesting quandary.
If the person affected by the acct asks for the prosecution to stop... should it? I saw that she made the comment again that she was unhappy that this had happened... at what point does the law go beyond the victims wishes? It seems that there are a couple arguments here:
1. He's a rapist he might do it again.
2. He must pay for his crime.
3. He skipped out on his court hearing.
The first one seems kinda pointless now... Either he HAS done it again over the past 30 years and kept it quiet, or he hasn't. If he hasn't then its unlikely that he would start now. The second one has some legitimacy, but if he gave some form of restitution to the girl, then hasn't he already 'paid' for his crime? The third one seems pretty straightforward, skipping out on the judge is never smart... but then thats a contempt charge, not a rape charge...
In one sense, I like seeing the law applied to everyone, even if it takes time... on the other hand, this feels a bit like someone trying to make a splash/get points/look good or something, perhaps a bit more than Lady Justice cracking him in the skull with her scales.
IMO, they can hang him for all I care, I mean he raped a kid after all!
I don't see it as paying for someones crime, there is no such thing as justice, the sentences are carried out as much to set the standard of the community as they do to appease the victim. Its never been about balance, its about regulating the community.
Arguments against the wishes of the victims: stockholm Syndrom and to a lesser extent what happened in Seven Brides for seven brothers.
Hrmmm... So then we're going after this guy to set the standard for our nation? I dunno, that sounds kind of hokey too. It seems to me that in a case like this, having him pay her large sums of money and making him a publicly identified sex offender would be more useful to everyone than sticking an old man in jail 30 some years after the fact. I mean, at that point we'll just be paying for him until he dies.
But then, with some frightening exceptions, I've never understood why sticking someone in a cell is better than making them pay with money or labor (community service etc) for their crimes. Sure in jail there's the risk of getting sex0rd up the rectum... but I'm not sure that's something we want to promote as a deterrent...
Though, in this case, maybe a visit from Bubba would be better justice than money :lulz:
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 08:27:55 PMBut then, with some frightening exceptions, I've never understood why sticking someone in a cell is better than making them pay with money or labor (community service etc) for their crimes.
I'd like to point out that it's not so much the getting locked in a cell or being buttfucked, it's
deprivation of liberty.
Quote from: Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard on September 30, 2009, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 08:27:55 PMBut then, with some frightening exceptions, I've never understood why sticking someone in a cell is better than making them pay with money or labor (community service etc) for their crimes.
I'd like to point out that it's not so much the getting locked in a cell or being buttfucked, it's deprivation of liberty.
Well, that's a good point.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 08:50:14 PM
Quote from: Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard on September 30, 2009, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 08:27:55 PMBut then, with some frightening exceptions, I've never understood why sticking someone in a cell is better than making them pay with money or labor (community service etc) for their crimes.
I'd like to point out that it's not so much the getting locked in a cell or being buttfucked, it's deprivation of liberty.
Well, that's a good point.
Thanks. :wink:
Just wanted to say that the sentiment expressed in the subject line has pissed me off for a few years now as I've encountered it every single time someone has brought up some Polanski film they like, and I explain why I won't support him or his work.
Poor woman though - I bet she wishes this would just all go away - it would have been a dead story decades ago if Polanski had served his time and faded into obscurity rather than serving himself via his career. Way to drag out the pain, fuckhead.
What is the difference between rape and rape-rape. Is rape-rape when he asks pretty please before the assault? Great insight there Whoopi. Thumbs up!
...yeah, I didn't get that either.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 30, 2009, 09:29:22 PM
What is the difference between rape and rape-rape. Is rape-rape when he asks pretty please before the assault? Great insight there Whoopi. Thumbs up!
I think she ignorantly assumed it was consensual statutory rape, versus non-consensual drugged rape.
Woopifail
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jTSS1sWOKdI/RuOLA3Sr1QI/AAAAAAAAAtI/zaVKlmIXDg0/s320/whoopi.jpg)
Yeah, because that would make him a real winner too.
Interesting. Poking around a few cesspools of the internet, it seems the consensus is that all these celebrity pals of Polanksi speaking out "proves" that left-liberalism is all about soft headed approval of child rape (ignore for a moment that Anne Applebaum is well on the right, as is her husband, Poland's current foreign minister who is attempting to intervene on Polanksi's behalf).
However, more subtle reading would suggest, far from Hollywood being driven to NAMBLA membership from reading too much Karl Marx, celebrities and those in high society, and those who wish to be part of high society, are more willing than not to excuse the crimes committed by members of those esteemed circles. In short, because someone like them committed the crime, they automatically ascribe to the theory that excuses their actions the most, regardless or not if they make sense.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 30, 2009, 10:01:25 PM
Yeah, because that would make him a real winner too.
Well in context, she's talking about how girls at 13, 14 years old are perceived differently in Europe than in the US.
Quote from: DumbassWhoopiWe're a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds in the rest of Europe... not everybody agrees with the way we see things...
I think she was trying to make a point that was not applicable (since drugging people and having sex with them is generally considered rape in Europe as well) and very poorly stated.
And it's that same kind of fuck-nut logic used to defend waterboarding, because, well, it isn't torture-torture.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 30, 2009, 10:09:23 PM
And it's that same kind of fuck-nut logic used to defend waterboarding, because, well, it isn't torture-torture.
In this case I would agree. I think there are some cases where Statutory rape is probably not at all related to actual rape... from what I've read of Polanski though, this doesn't seem to be the case.
I did read an interesting piece which said that the French response to this may have a lot to do with an apparently botched case in 2004 where a pedophile ring was captured in northern France and several people were convicted, before it came to light that they were all innocent. So according to that article, at least, there is apparently some distrust between the French people and the legal systems Sex Offender policies. I dunno much about that though.
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2009, 10:02:39 PMIn short, because someone like them committed the crime, they automatically ascribe to the theory that excuses their actions the most, regardless or not if they make sense.
Yes.
Whoopi Goldberg defended rape. :lulz:
And people watch that show to get "the news".
I still like his films.
I don't care if he goes to jail.
The U.S. was bound to catch up with him at some point anyway, if he wanted to stay out of jail he should have stayed in france.
That he was lured into a false sense of security regarding switzerland is his own fault. Anyway, the whole thing has all the elements of a greek tragedy, including the hubris of the main character being his eventual downfall.
Quote from: Cain on September 30, 2009, 03:23:06 PM
http://jezebel.com/5369395/whoopi-on-roman-polanski-it-wasnt-rape+rape
QuoteI know it wasn't rape-rape. It was something else but I don't believe it was rape-rape. He went to jail and and when they let him out he was like "You know what, this guy's going to give me a hundred years in jail, I'm not staying", so that's why he left.
P.S. Whoopi Goldberg is, and always has been, a retarded ignorant cunt who commits regular acts of epic fail as a "comedian" and a human being.
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 10:05:25 PM
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 30, 2009, 10:01:25 PM
Yeah, because that would make him a real winner too.
Well in context, she's talking about how girls at 13, 14 years old are perceived differently in Europe than in the US.
Quote from: DumbassWhoopiWe’re a different kind of society. We see things differently. The world sees 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds in the rest of Europe… not everybody agrees with the way we see things…
I think she was trying to make a point that was not applicable (since drugging people and having sex with them is generally considered rape in Europe as well) and very poorly stated.
Wait, what "we" in that sentence is about Europe???? Maybe in Italy, if your name is Berlusconi?
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 10:24:25 PM
I think there are some cases where Statutory rape is probably not at all related to actual rape... from what I've read of Polanski though, this doesn't seem to be the case.
I think Rat is trying to say there might be a difference between a sober 13-year-old pleading, "fuck me in the ass!" and a drugged up 13-year-old screaming "stop!" Both
are rape, however.
Wow. Writing that just creeped me out.
Trip, I believe in Spain the age of consent is 13, and in many Eastern European countries it is closer to 14 than 18. I suspect that was what was being hinted at.
Also, interestingly, the age of consent in Vatican City is 12. Hmmm, I wonder why that may be....
Quote from: LMNO on October 01, 2009, 01:19:15 PM
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on September 30, 2009, 10:24:25 PM
I think there are some cases where Statutory rape is probably not at all related to actual rape... from what I've read of Polanski though, this doesn't seem to be the case.
I think Rat is trying to say there might be a difference between a sober 13-year-old pleading, "fuck me in the ass!" and a drugged up 13-year-old screaming "stop!" Both are rape, however.
Wow. Writing that just creeped me out.
I think that's pretty close to correct. There are instances where a person under the age of consent may be wanting, willing and waiting... and there may be someone older (not even old, just say... 19 or 20) and that is statutory rape... but it doesn't seem anything like drugging a person and fucking them after they beg you to stop. The former is a Very Bad Choice, but probably more closely linked with what is socially acceptable in your area. The later is a horrific act (raep-raep) and we might want to consider castration.
And all of this could have been avoided if Roman had just called 'Surprise!' first.
The former, to me, is also pretty messed up... especially if it's 44-year-old guy doing the fucking.
If you approach it from a brain development point of view, even if a 13 year old says yes, it isn't the same thing as a 23 year old saying yes. The 23 year old has a different context and set of experiences they are working from, usually. The 13 year old, probably not so much.
Quote from: LMNO on October 01, 2009, 03:24:39 PM
The former, to me, is also pretty messed up... especially if it's 44-year-old guy doing the fucking.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on October 01, 2009, 03:36:22 PM
If you approach it from a brain development point of view, even if a 13 year old says yes, it isn't the same thing as a 23 year old saying yes. The 23 year old has a different context and set of experiences they are working from, usually. The 13 year old, probably not so much.
I agree 100% and in this case he drugged her and she said No... so there's no real question in my mind that he was pretty messed up.
I got hit on by an underage girl once. She was, in all honesty HOT. However, its exactly the point RWHN made that made me say "Uh, NO". Which was weird, because a few years before that, when I was still a JW, it would have been the "OMGZ that is illegal" that would have made me run away.
Additionally, thirteen year old girls that want to fuck adults may have something problematic going on in their head, just as the adult that indulges them does. The book 'Lolita' made that point rather well. I felt sorry for Lolita and Humbert, they both appeared completely screwed in their programming.
I will agree that if a 13-year old girl is asking to be sodomized by a 44-year-old any man, she's undoubtedly asking for something completely different. Like professional help, for example.
Quote from: LMNO on October 01, 2009, 03:49:22 PM
I will agree that if a 13-year old girl is asking to be sodomized by a 44-year-old any man, she's undoubtedly asking for something completely different. Like professional help, for example.
100% TROOF
I could ALMOST agree that a 13 year old girl might be in the beginning of puberty and have hormones (esp on the diet we eat in the West)... so MAYBE asking someone for sex isn't specifically cause they are psycho... sodomy in that siituation though would seem born out of some serious psychological issues.
Either way, adults should "Just say No!"
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2009, 03:00:19 PM
Also, interestingly, the age of consent in Vatican City is 12. Hmmm, I wonder why that may be....
Well, there should be very little reason even for the existence of an age-of-consent statute
there, surely(!)
:horrormirth:
Quote from: Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard on October 01, 2009, 04:05:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2009, 03:00:19 PM
Also, interestingly, the age of consent in Vatican City is 12. Hmmm, I wonder why that may be....
Well, there should be very little reason even for the existence of an age-of-consent statute there, surely(!)
:horrormirth:
Well, as long as you tell the priest about it afterward, it doesn't really matter what age or sex the person is... right?
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 09:04:57 PM
Just wanted to say that the sentiment expressed in the subject line has pissed me off for a few years now as I've encountered it every single time someone has brought up some Polanski film they like, and I explain why I won't support him or his work.
Poor woman though - I bet she wishes this would just all go away - it would have been a dead story decades ago if Polanski had served his time and faded into obscurity rather than serving himself via his career. Way to drag out the pain, fuckhead.
If Einstein were a rapist, would you deny the theory of relativity?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2009, 04:59:57 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 09:04:57 PM
Just wanted to say that the sentiment expressed in the subject line has pissed me off for a few years now as I've encountered it every single time someone has brought up some Polanski film they like, and I explain why I won't support him or his work.
Poor woman though - I bet she wishes this would just all go away - it would have been a dead story decades ago if Polanski had served his time and faded into obscurity rather than serving himself via his career. Way to drag out the pain, fuckhead.
If Einstein were a rapist, would you deny the theory of relativity?
I sure as hell wouldn't BUY his paper on it.
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2009, 03:00:19 PM
Trip, I believe in Spain the age of consent is 13, and in many Eastern European countries it is closer to 14 than 18. I suspect that was what was being hinted at.
Also, interestingly, the age of consent in Vatican City is 12. Hmmm, I wonder why that may be....
wow, okay. I didn't know that.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2009, 04:59:57 PMIf Einstein were a rapist, would you deny the theory of relativity?
absolutely.
you gotta draw the line
somewhere, and if there's PROOF of rape, but only a THEORY of relativity, you should deny it out of principle.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 01, 2009, 06:27:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2009, 03:00:19 PM
Trip, I believe in Spain the age of consent is 13, and in many Eastern European countries it is closer to 14 than 18. I suspect that was what was being hinted at.
Also, interestingly, the age of consent in Vatican City is 12. Hmmm, I wonder why that may be....
wow, okay. I didn't know that.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2009, 04:59:57 PMIf Einstein were a rapist, would you deny the theory of relativity?
absolutely.
you gotta draw the line somewhere, and if there's PROOF of rape, but only a THEORY of relativity, you should deny it out of principle.
But what if the rape is accomplished by Spooky Action at a Distance?
Quote from: Jean-Lustine d'Hadamard on October 01, 2009, 04:05:57 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2009, 03:00:19 PM
Also, interestingly, the age of consent in Vatican City is 12. Hmmm, I wonder why that may be....
Well, there should be very little reason even for the existence of an age-of-consent statute there, surely(!)
:horrormirth:
Those little Cesare Borgia's and villains of Dan Brown novel's have to come from
somewhere.
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 01, 2009, 06:27:17 PM
wow, okay. I didn't know that.
Yeah, most of northern Europe seems to draw the line at 16, or 15 in some rare cases. But the Baltic states, central Europe and Spain go even lower. I believe Gary Glitter actually attempted to take advantage of the Spanish law quite recently, taking a holiday on the French border (before the French realized what was up and bundled him back to the UK for using their country as a useful jumping pad for his pedo-hunts).
Quote from: Doctor Rat Bastard on October 01, 2009, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: Triple Zero on October 01, 2009, 06:27:17 PM
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2009, 03:00:19 PM
Trip, I believe in Spain the age of consent is 13, and in many Eastern European countries it is closer to 14 than 18. I suspect that was what was being hinted at.
Also, interestingly, the age of consent in Vatican City is 12. Hmmm, I wonder why that may be....
wow, okay. I didn't know that.
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2009, 04:59:57 PMIf Einstein were a rapist, would you deny the theory of relativity?
absolutely.
you gotta draw the line somewhere, and if there's PROOF of rape, but only a THEORY of relativity, you should deny it out of principle.
But what if the rape is accomplished by Spooky Action at a Distance?
Then he would be simultaneously guilty and not guilty, and should be thrown in quantum superprison.
Well, it acts like a superprison, but sometimes it is also a massage parlour, thanks to quantum indeterminancy.
Quote from: Cain on October 01, 2009, 07:16:04 PM
Well, it acts like a superprison, but sometimes it is also a massage parlour, thanks to quantum indeterminancy.
...Where Big Linda's cock is in a linear superposition of being in his pants, and up someone's arsehole.
See, and my husband WONDERS why I find the idea of a 44 year old man taking on his 1st, 2nd or 3rd wife a child-bride of 13 or 14 in Afghanistan (by the way, very COMMON practice over there) morally repugnant and disgusting. Where my subculture originated from, it was fine, but that was long ago. Men waited longer to get married and they married very young women. I can't imagine the wedding night was anything short of rape. Especially as courtship rituals were short and more of a courtship of the families involved...I think that's certainly the way it is in Afghanistan.
...don't remember where I was going with this...
Quote from: Hoopla on October 01, 2009, 04:59:57 PM
Quote from: fictionpuss on September 30, 2009, 09:04:57 PM
Just wanted to say that the sentiment expressed in the subject line has pissed me off for a few years now as I've encountered it every single time someone has brought up some Polanski film they like, and I explain why I won't support him or his work.
Poor woman though - I bet she wishes this would just all go away - it would have been a dead story decades ago if Polanski had served his time and faded into obscurity rather than serving himself via his career. Way to drag out the pain, fuckhead.
If Einstein were a rapist, would you deny the theory of relativity?
Only if I couldn't distinguish any significant difference between entertainment and science. But even still, I wouldn't be making excuses for Einstein if that were the case.
Nor would I, but I can separate the person from their work... which some people seem to find difficult.
Lovecraft was an out-and-out raving racist, but do I still enjoy reading his stories? Sure, why not?
Quote from: Hoopla on October 02, 2009, 06:31:37 PM
Nor would I, but I can separate the person from their work... which some people seem to find difficult.
Lovecraft was an out-and-out raving racist, but do I still enjoy reading his stories? Sure, why not?
This. Also, I think that views expressed by Nick Pell @ The Black Sun Gazette need some consideration as well:
http://blacksungazette.com/?p=936 (A bit too long an pic/link loaded to quote.)
Well that's the opinion driven media for you. The more shrill, irrational and violently you make your complaints, the more viewers/clicks/unique page views you get.
For more see: Coulter, Ann and Beck, Glenn.
But yeah, the it does seem that on one hand, you have people who will defend Polanski regardless and tell you about how he is the real victim here, and on the other hand you have a bunch of people trying to fire up the mob and cry for blood to be spilled, despite condoning far worse crimes than Polanski's (Abu Ghraib ring any bells? I saw columns who believed this was a worse moral indictment of America than systemic torture and sexual abuse, ie what Polanski did on a much bigger scale).
Personally, I just wanna see justice done, because I don't think being rich or famous or an artistic genius are a licence to be able to treat other people the way Polanski did. I'm sick of the rich and well connected getting off scott-free from crimes that, if anyone here were to commit them, would likely land us in prison for life, if not for execution - and have major international publications try to defend them.
Quote from: Telarus on October 03, 2009, 05:49:33 AMThis. Also, I think that views expressed by Nick Pell @ The Black Sun Gazette need some consideration as well:
There'll always be conspiracy theories concerning anything high-profile, and there are interesting questions about the timing of this and the banks thing. But I'll agree that:
Quote from: Cain on October 03, 2009, 01:37:28 PMPersonally, I just wanna see justice done, because I don't think being rich or famous or an artistic genius are a licence to be able to treat other people the way Polanski did.
While the means may not justify the ends, that doesn't mean the ends are completely unjustified.
Agreed.