polanski

[Killian Kalthorne]

Well you're the one seeking to charge 15 year old boys with raping their 14 year old girls friends even though it was consensual.

It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law.

[213374U]

Lol, stop being such a pathetic attention whore, Hades. Nobody cares. Order a mail bride already.

 

 

no relativist? you is kidding, right? review your homocide comments.

 

our interest, is as we stated already: polanski polarizes. is a curiosity. is very difficult for folks on one side of argument to understand folks on the other side. is an odd issue to result in such divisiveness. kinda like OJ insofar as predictability o' guessing which pov a person will be choosing.

 

as to whether we know something you don't... is another one we won't touch... too easy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

Oh, ****. You got me there. WoD tried to paint me as the bad guy with a poorly built fallacy, and I just played along. Heh, if he had admitted to be quoting from his Bible, I would have had to accept it, as murder as defined in there is immutable. But if there was a natural definition for murder, there would be no need to codify it, no?

 

Anyway, I think you are just playing hard to get. Why don't you tell us what you think (and not what you "know").

[alanschu]

It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law.

 

Hey the government says so, who are we to question it right?

Edited October 1, 2009 by alanschu

[213374U]

You're just trying to justify child rape!

[alanschu]

Yeah, it's definitely child rape when two 14 year olds (assuming 14 is below the age of consent) have sex!

 

My bad!

[Volourn]

"The law tells them not to. They shouldn't do it "

 

 

 

"It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law."

 

These comments are just as bad as comments defending Polanski's actions.

 

btw, The alw isn't always right. In fact, it's very often wrong. But, hey, I guess slavery was fine and dandy when it was legal. And, I guess brothers and fathers murdering their sisters/daughters because they were alone with an unrelated male is a ok too because it's legal, right?

 

Give me a break.

 

 

Supporting illogical, and immoral laws is just plain old fashion silly.

[Amentep]

Well you're the one seeking to charge 15 year old boys with raping their 14 year old girls friends even though it was consensual.

It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law.

 

There's a difference between disagreeing with a law, debating the merits of the law and breaking the law.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Oh, ****. You got me there. WoD tried to paint me as the bad guy with a poorly built fallacy, and I just played along. Heh, if he had admitted to be quoting from his Bible, I would have had to accept it, as murder as defined in there is immutable. But if there was a natural definition for murder, there would be no need to codify it, no?

So you admit you were being dishonest, because otherwise you'd lose the argument. Why don't you show how my argument was a poorly built fallacy? And the Bible doesn't define murder btw, it just says you shouldn't do it, but I guess you don't know that on your own.

[alanschu]

Playing devil's advocate is hardly "being dishonest."

 

 

The mere fact that different countries have different laws for the various different ways for people to take the life of another human being, including situations where it is acceptable to take the life of another human being, proves that it's not a simple issue.

 

It gets even more muddied up when different countries agree on different recourse for retribution for the crime.

 

 

Laws get redefined ALL the time. For instance, there is no crime known as "rape" in the Canadian Justice System. This is because rape had certain associations, requiring sexual penetration, attached to it, and they felt that a "rape" crime was far too narrow in scope. We now have varying degrees of "Sexual Assault" depending on the various factors associated with the sexual assault. It was also at this time spousal protection was enforced, because until then (early 80s) it was impossible for the legal system to recognize that a husband could rape his wife under the rape law. A whole slew of changes came at that time regarding sexually related crimes.

 

 

But yeah, before 1980, it was perfectly okay for a husband to rape his wife, and good ol' Hades supports it 100% because there's no Law preventing it!

Edited October 1, 2009 by alanschu

[~Di]

Sad but predictable that so many comments are about the victim... whether she had sex before, whether she was actually a prostitute, whether she basically "asked for it."

 

She was a 13 year old girl, whose mother inexplicably gave permission for a private photo shoot with a 44 year old man. Polanski gave her liquor and Quaaluds, told her to go into the hot tub and insisted she remove her clothing. She was scared, and protested, but eventually did as she was told. When he got into the tub with her, he was nude. She told him she had asthma, and ran into the bathroom. She told him she had to go home. He told her to lie down on his bed. Instead she ran to the couch, because she was afraid. He began to perform oral sex with her. She cried and told him no. He ignored her protests, although she told him no over and over again. He then raped her and sodomized her, and told her not to tell her mother.

 

She was not a whore. She did not give consent. She was a scared little girl who thought she was going to have pictures taken of her by a 44 year old film director. And... she... was... raped.

 

So now we go through a huge process of deciding whether it should really be against the law to rape 13 year olds, and whether or not she really liked it because now, 30 years later, she just wants this case to be over so she can finally lead a quiet private life.

 

This guy escaped his sentence (a sweetheart plea bargain deal, by the way), then took off to Europe to avoid sentencing, and has lived happily protected by his European buddies for decades. Hell, yes, it's time for him to take the punishment he's earned... and a bit more for violating the plea agreement and flight to avoid prosecution. I don't care what the stupid, big mouth celebrities like Whoopi say.

[alanschu]

So now we go through a huge process of deciding whether it should really be against the law to rape 13 year olds, and whether or not she really liked it because now, 30 years later, she just wants this case to be over so she can finally lead a quiet private life.

 

For the record, I absolutely do not think that Polanski should be a free man and not have to pay for his crime. Based on the way he's talking, I get the feeling my numerical friend is in the same boat.

[LadyCrimson]

My feelings about Polanski can be summed up thus:

 

1-He drugged/raped/sodomized a young teen.

2-He confessed to a plea bargain to a lesser charge to get a reduced sentence, and when it looked like maybe he'd actually serve a harsher sentence

3-He fled to escape the law and a possible prison sentence because he was a cowardly douche.

 

I don't care how many years have gone by, or how good his movies may be. He was a douche, and he still is a douche. Extradite him. Let a new judge or jury look at the case and decide if he should still serve hard time...but he needs to face the court.

 

I can't believe how many celebrities are condoning "leaving the poor guy alone."

[Humodour]

In vast swathes of the world the age of consent is 13 or 14. That signifies to me cultural difference which a lot of Americans (where it is 18 or 19) refuse to accept.

[Humodour]

So now we go through a huge process of deciding whether it should really be against the law to rape 13 year olds, and whether or not she really liked it because now, 30 years later, she just wants this case to be over so she can finally lead a quiet private life.

 

For the record, I absolutely do not think that Polanski should be a free man and not have to pay for his crime. Based on the way he's talking, I get the feeling my numerical friend is in the same boat.

 

Agreed.

[LadyCrimson]

In vast swathes of the world the age of consent is 13 or 14. That signifies to me cultural difference which a lot of Americans (where it is 18 or 19) refuse to accept.

For me, at least, it has nothing to do with age of consent. You're all arguing that as if that's the main topic at hand. It's not. It's the RAPE charge and the fact he fled to avoid serving time.

 

If the girl in question had actually come out and said "I love Polanski and it was all consensual, we're eloping now" or some other such thing (and it had panned out to be true), I might personally go "ewwww" or think they both desperately need some counseling but think "whatever." I'm highly aware age of consent varies both legally and emotionally, and certainly with social history.

 

It is not just about the girls age, in this case, for me....rape is rape. He drugged her and took advantage. She said no, she said stop. I'd feel the same about Polanski for raping someone and then trying to flee consequences if the girl had been 30.

[Humodour]

For me, at least, it has nothing to do with age of consent. You're all arguing that as if that's the main topic at hand. It's not. It's the RAPE charge and the fact he fled to avoid serving time.

 

Because nobody disagrees with the rape charge and the topic is boring when everybody agrees.

[LadyCrimson]

For me, at least, it has nothing to do with age of consent. You're all arguing that as if that's the main topic at hand. It's not. It's the RAPE charge and the fact he fled to avoid serving time.

 

Because nobody disagrees with the rape charge and the topic is boring when everybody agrees.

I take your point, and acknowledge there's truth re:boring.

 

Apologies if I came off as too harsh. I've had friends with+personal experience with sexual predators and I do not find the topic to be "entertaining" at all, especially if I see anything that seems to reinenforce any "it's not really rape if..."

 

Whoopi really shot her foot in her mouth this time. *mumbles*

Edit: Whoopi, not Whoppi.. >.>

Edited October 1, 2009 by LadyCrimson

[213374U]

So you admit you were being dishonest, because otherwise you'd lose the argument. Why don't you show how my argument was a poorly built fallacy?

It was a false analogy. You were trying to assimilate my questioning of a poorly defined aphorism with questioning the substance and associated ethics of murder - a thinly veiled personal argument. That was dishonest.

 

I didn't think it merited a serious response, so I took the rhetorical path. At that point there was no arguement to lose anymore.

 

 

And the Bible doesn't define murder btw, it just says you shouldn't do it, but I guess you don't know that on your own.

Depends. Looking just at the New Testament, it's "You shall not kill"/"You shall not murder", depending on translation.

 

So killing another person is a no-no in all its forms. That's why it's not "defined"... it's an all-encompassing definition, and probably as close to a natural definition you can get. Not very good as a source of law, though.

 

The Old Testament is much more fun, to be sure. Which one do you want to subscribe?

 

 

For the record, I absolutely do not think that Polanski should be a free man and not have to pay for his crime. Based on the way he's talking, I get the feeling my numerical friend is in the same boat.

It was a crime at the time he did it, so he should face the consequences, even if the law is changed further down the line.

 

Simply because I reserve the right to break the law when I see fit doesn't mean I expect not to be prosecuted.

Edited October 1, 2009 by 213374U

[Killian Kalthorne]

It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law.

 

Hey the government says so, who are we to question it right?

 

You can question the government, and seek to change the Law, but until the Law is changed then you must obey the Law or face the consequences of breaking the Law.

[Pidesco]

It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law.

 

Hey the government says so, who are we to question it right?

 

You can question the government, and seek to change the Law, but until the Law is changed then you must obey the Law or face the consequences of breaking the Law.

 

[mkreku]

I love how people get so hung up about "The Age ©". It's just an arbitrary number. Some people are mature enough to have consensual sex when they are 13, most people are not.

 

Not that it matters in this case; the girl was raped.

[213374U]

But it's against The Law!

[213374U]

It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law.

 

Hey the government says so, who are we to question it right?

 

You can question the government, and seek to change the Law, but until the Law is changed then you must obey the Law or face the consequences of breaking the Law.

 

[Humodour]

It is against the Law. The Law is the Law and no one is above the Law. If you disagree with the Law that does not give you the right to break the Law. In Iowa those 15 year old boys would be charged and placed on the sex offender list. Hell, sexting has gotten minors prison time and labeled as such. It is the Law.

 

Hey the government says so, who are we to question it right?

 

You can question the government, and seek to change the Law, but until the Law is changed then you must obey the Law or face the consequences of breaking the Law.

 

I'll chance it thanks. *smokes a joint*

[Amentep]

This guy escaped his sentence (a sweetheart plea bargain deal, by the way),

 

From Polanski's side - he left because his sweetheart plea bargain deal was going to be ignored by the judge according to him and he felt like the judge and the DA colluded to convince him to plead guilty so they could make an example of him.

 

Clearly the rape was dispicable and I don't agree him fleeing (he could have fought it under appeal, afaik) and the judge is dead now so can't really defend himself, but I suspect that this, combined with the victim wanting the whole thing to end is the reason why so many people misguidedly IMO back Polanski (well that and he's a famous director, who is apparently fairly likeable in person and his wife was horribly murdered in the 60s)