polanski

[213374U]

is age o' consent ultimately an arbitrary line drawn in sand? sure it is, but so is speed limits and dollar amounts for grand larceny and a thousand other examples. society decides that to protect children from abuse, age o' consent laws is useful. am hopeful you ain't gonna try the slippery slope relativism o' other posters, 'cause it just not hold muster.

What slippery slope? All you can come up to support the, as you admit yourself, arbitrary line is that "society believes X". Well, is "society" (read: Congress) somehow infallible? Are those laws as effective as they could be? Is there a better way to achieve the same end? Just pointing your finger and going "relativist!" is not good enough to refute anything - I'm sure you can do better.

 

This is a completely tangential topic, btw. It has no bearing on the case, as the law was such and such when he did the deed, and then it was illegal - it's no attempt to defend Polanski or legitimize child abuse in general. You can lay down your torches and pitchforks now, folks.

[Gromnir]

am sorry, but is silly in extreme. 55 and 65mph is arbitrary. so is 18 years of age for consent and $500 for grand larceny. so, obviously we can't have no speed limit, age of consent or dollar amount for grand larceny.

 

*snort*

 

as walsh mentions, if you think 18 is too high, then what number you think is appropriate? doesn't really matter though... 'cause once you agree that some age of consent or speed limit is beneficial, or that it makes sense to distinguish petit from grand larceny, then you is just arguing details... can always quibble over the exact perfect number or measure. so what? admission that laws depend on an arbitrary limit or number in no way invalidates 'cept in silly message board scenarios referencing the high morals of the ancient egyptians. huh?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps you gotta be a complete idgit if you suggest that the only valid and useful law is one that is infallible. numbers, Gromnir would like to introduce you to the Real World... apparently you two has never met before today.

Edited October 2, 2009 by Gromnir

[213374U]

am sorry, but is silly in extreme. 55 and 65mph is arbitrary. so is 18 years of age for consent and $500 for grand larceny. so, obviously we can't have no speed limit, age of consent or dollar amount for grand larceny.

You were giving lessons of straw man fallacies, just a few posts ago. That's a textbook example. Not bad, Grom, not bad. Not exactly what I had in mind when I said you could do better, though.

 

 

as walsh mentions, if you think 18 is too high, then what number you think is appropriate? doesn't really matter though... 'cause once you agree that some age of consent or speed limit is beneficial, or that it makes sense to distinguish petit from grand larceny, then you is just arguing details... can always quibble over the exact perfect number or measure. so what? admission that laws depend on an arbitrary limit or number in no way invalidates 'cept in silly message board scenarios referencing the high morals of the ancient egyptians. huh?

I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?" Since, by your own admission, its value as a deterrent for similarly aged teenagers isn't that great, and nobody actually bothers to enforce it in those cases.

 

The Ancient Egyptians were just an example to show that just because CONGRESS set it up that way it doesn't mean it's the ONLY way. Gee, who woulda thunk it!

 

Oh, wait. They are "barbarians", right?

 

 

ps you gotta be a complete idgit if you suggest that the only valid and useful law is one that is infallible. numbers, Gromnir would like to introduce you to the Real World... apparently you two has never met before today.

Yeah. You can also use a knife to open a tin can. Doesn't mean it's the best tool to do it - nor is having a knife an excuse not to go buy a can opener. Edited October 2, 2009 by 213374U

[Gromnir]

am sorry, but is silly in extreme. 55 and 65mph is arbitrary. so is 18 years of age for consent and $500 for grand larceny. so, obviously we can't have no speed limit, age of consent or dollar amount for grand larceny.

You were giving lessons of straw men fallacies, just a few posts ago. That's a textbook example. Not bad, Grom, not bad. Not exactly what I had in mind when I said you could do better, though.

 

 

as walsh mentions, if you think 18 is too high, then what number you think is appropriate? doesn't really matter though... 'cause once you agree that some age of consent or speed limit is beneficial, or that it makes sense to distinguish petit from grand larceny, then you is just arguing details... can always quibble over the exact perfect number or measure. so what? admission that laws depend on an arbitrary limit or number in no way invalidates 'cept in silly message board scenarios referencing the high morals of the ancient egyptians. huh?

I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?" Since, by your own admission, its value as a deterrent for similarly aged teenagers isn't that great, and nobody actually bothers to enforce it in those cases.

 

The Ancient Egyptians were just an example to show that just because CONGRESS set it up that way it doesn't mean it's the ONLY way. Gee, who woulda thunk it!

 

Oh, wait. They are "barbarians", right?

 

am not sure you genuine know what straw man is. how is dollar limit for grand larceny different than your argument regarding consent age? some clown steals $499 and is petit. steals $500 (or, when in CA, any any amount of avocados) and he is likely to face grand larceny charges... am serious 'bout the avocados thing. is arbitrary. is a distinction that could conceivably send some person to prison for life if is facing 3-strikes. if is fails 'cause is arbitrary, then there ain't no difference, is there? is literally thousands o' laws that got arbitrary limits and thresholds. you got a Constitution that protects us from the tyranny o' the majority, but otherwise is society that decides on rules to govern selves. the investment o' the citizenry in the process makes for some seemingly odd laws, but that investment by people also means that Force is not needed to gets most people to follow the laws.

 

"I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?""

 

nope, that were never the question. laws ain't 'bout best way to protect. laws don't necessarily have to find least restrictive or ideal means o' protection... never has, talk 'bout slippery slopes. laws is also 'bout expediency and vengeance. am gonna have to introduce you to RW again? only the most ignorant o' flower sniffing hippies thinks all laws is only 'bout bestest. Best? HA! again, is of, by and for the people... people not make best laws. has never Evar, been 'bout best when you is talking 'bout representative democracies. as long as the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest you got a valid law in this country. is not plato's philosopher king.

 

and Congress never set no age o' consent... is different from state to state. nevertheless, if you thinks you bolster your argument by comparing morality judgments made by democratic elected representatives o' new hampshire or idaho with those o' the pharaohs, then good luck with that.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gorgon]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"

 

 

Written during slavery, which makes it utterly hypocritical. Necessary at the time, but completely false.

 

am not certain why you think the principle is invalidated 'cause o' the hypocrisy of the author. a father who never brushes his teeth teaches his children to brush twice a day and floss regular. is the dad's message false? how 'bout michael vick doing humane society commercials 'bout treatment o' pets? is false that dogs should be treated humanely? hypocrisy of the messenger does not invalidate the message.

 

the fact that principles espoused in the declaration is more valid now than it were when written makes principles false?

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," sounds better than, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all white men are created equal". just doesn't roll off the tongue as well.

Look were those beautiful words led us, apologetics for slavery, the French revolution and subsequent reign of terror, I think they actually coined that term.

[213374U]

am not sure you genuine know what straw man is. how is dollar limit for grand larceny different than your argument regarding consent age? some clown steals $499 and is petit. steals $500 (or, when in CA, any any amount of avocados) and he is likely to face grand larceny charges... am serious 'bout the avocados thing. is arbitrary. is a distinction that could conceivably send some person to prison for life if is facing 3-strikes. if is fails 'cause is arbitrary, then there ain't no difference, is there? is literally thousands o' laws that got arbitrary limits and thresholds.

It's a strawman because you are placing my argument and others you made in the same camp, and then using those arguments to attack my position. Jeez.

 

Where do you get the idea that I'm all out against arbitrary limits for everything? A speed limit applies to cars and speed. An age of consent applies to people and sex. Can you really establish a flimsier analogy?

 

Stop bogging down the discussion with misrepresentations.

 

 

"I think the question is, "is age of consent legislation the best way to protect children from sexual predators and abuse?""

 

nope, that were never the question. laws ain't 'bout best way to protect. laws don't necessarily have to find least restrictive or ideal means o' protection... never has, talk 'bout slippery slopes. laws is also 'bout expediency and vengeance. am gonna have to introduce you to RW again? only the most ignorant o' flower sniffing hippies thinks all laws is only 'bout bestest. Best? HA! again, is of, by and for the people... people not make best laws. has never Evar, been 'bout best when you is talking 'bout representative democracies. as long as the governmental action be "rationally related" to a "legitimate" government interest you got a valid law in this country. is not plato's philosopher king.

I'm more a Socrates kind of guy myself, tbh. You know, what with posing questions and all. Which is kinda at odds with your circular logic about the legitimacy and usefulness requirements and intent of laws. But hey, you're the lawyer. If you say the necessary and sufficient condition for laws is the govt's thumbsup, I guess you'd know better. I think I should ask for a second opinion, though. Not saying this isn't how things are, either. But it's a sad state of affairs. Yes, yes, I know. The real world, yadda yadda.

 

What?

 

 

if you thinks you bolster your argument by comparing morality judgments made by democratic elected representatives o' new hampshire or idaho with those o' the pharaohs, then good luck with that.

Yeah, yeah. Because democracy is "of, by, and for the people", and therefore anything else (read: barbarians) is inferior and wrong. Okay.

 

The Egyptians' example wasn't meant to establish moral comparisons, anyway (Isn't that supposed to be unrelated to this debate, at any rate?). You misunderstood or are (again) misrepresenting me. Professional deformation? I simply threw it in there to show that different realities can exist that conflict with what is generally assumed to be true (in this case, that non-adults can't cope with sex). I'm not even drawing any conclusions myself... I'm not qualified to.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Yup. Edited October 3, 2009 by 213374U

[Maria Caliban]

If some 40 year old woman sexed me up when I was 13, I would have been ecstatic, proud and congratulated by my peers and family.

 

And if a guy drugged you and sexed you up?

[~Di]

...He wasnt trialed and sentenced for RAPE, so according to law he did not do it.

 

I'll try one last time to get through to you, although nobody else has been able to so I don't have high hopes. Please read carefully: He was indicted by a Grand Jury, which found sufficient evidence to charge him with several felonies. He didn't have a trial because... this is the part that counts... he plead guilty. Guilty!! He said to a judge, "Yes, I did it. I am guilty." He then had to allocute to the crime in front of the judge, which means he had to tell the judge every single thing he did to that child, including the facts that he drugged her and she did not consent to the intercourse.

 

Please, for the love of all that is holy, stop going on about "no evidence", and she might be lying, etc. She was not lying because Polanski said in front of the judge that she was not lying, that he had indeed done everything she said that he had.

 

Lordy.

[Lare Kikkeli]

Well I had a lot of experience with kids not to mention when I was 13 years old a lot of girls in my school were cruising in a mall, having sex for money with older man. They always pretended they were at least 15(legal age of consent in Poland ) to put the guys at ease after they flashed their breast in front of them in a tiolet stall. So no, I do not believe all 13 year olds are naive and innocent, lots of them are doing wrong things on purpose, cause it is fun.

 

Alright first of all I don't believe you. In Poland, 13-year old girls rape you? Yeah right.

 

Second of all, anocdotal evicende. Even if thats true it might be a bunch of girls in your neighbourhood, not the whole of Poland and certainly not all over the world.

 

Third, suppose that happened in Poland. What does it have to do with what happened in Jack Nicholsons estate 30 years ago? Nothing, that's what. Albinos get killed for their body parts that get used in witch rituals in africa. By your logic, all albino murders that happened 30 years ago could very well have been witchcraft related.

 

See the logical error here?

 

 

 

Oh and I explained why he should walk off in my opinion:

- he is old

- he never did that again

- putting him in jail wont achieve much, you will have to pay for him(if you pay taxes and are America that is)

- he should pay lots of money for some organization that helps people who were abused sexually instead of going in jail and doing nothing.

- and the case is really old

 

This has been covered by smarter people than me but I'll say it again: Being white, old & rich shouldn't keep you out of jail for crimes young poor black men go in for the rest of their lives. I know I'm probably an idealist and now some deucebag will lecture me on how the world doesn't work that way & that it is natural so save your breath. If there is any justice in this world Polanski goes to jail.

[Pidesco]

If some 40 year old woman sexed me up when I was 13, I would have been ecstatic, proud and congratulated by my peers and family.

 

And if a guy drugged you and sexed you up?

 

 

I did not say nor imply that what Polanski did was right or shouldn't be punished.

[213374U]

I'll try one last time to get through to you, although nobody else has been able to so I don't have high hopes. Please read carefully: He was indicted by a Grand Jury, which found sufficient evidence to charge him with several felonies. He didn't have a trial because... this is the part that counts... he plead guilty. Guilty!! He said to a judge, "Yes, I did it. I am guilty." He then had to allocute to the crime in front of the judge, which means he had to tell the judge every single thing he did to that child, including the facts that he drugged her and she did not consent to the intercourse.

Yes, he did admit to "IT". "IT", in this case, means sex with a minor, as per the terms of his guilty plea agreement with the prosecution. He did admit to "IT" because it meant he wouldn't be tried for RAPE. Or so goes the LAT article Gromnir linked to.

 

Can you be sentenced for something you aren't charged with?

 

Which one do you like better, pick one: a) the supremacy of the rule of law being upheld, or b) Polanski doing hard time no matter what. They needn't be one and the same.

Edited October 3, 2009 by 213374U

[Guest PoziomyPion]

@DI First of all Polanski admitted to having sex with a minor, not raping her and thats a huge differnece. This is why I say what I say, he was charged with rape at the beginning(the next day after Jacks Nicholson estate happening) and later all of the charges besides having sex with a minor were dropped.

 

Alright first of all I don't believe you. In Poland, 13-year old girls rape you? Yeah right.

 

My God not rape but try to have sex with elder men. Not all of them but it happens. Jailbaits, do you know that term?

 

Third, suppose that happened in Poland. What does it have to do with what happened in Jack Nicholsons estate 30 years ago?

 

I wrote about that to illustrate why I think that mrs Geimer MIGHT have been a Jailbait.

 

Nothing, that's what. Albinos get killed for their body parts that get used in witch rituals in africa. By your logic, all albino murders that happened 30 years ago could very well have been witchcraft related.

 

See my response above. Im aware it happened in Poland, my point is I think that Geimer was a jailbait and like every jailbait when parents found out she had sex with an older guy she accuses him of being forced into the situation. Why I ASSUME that? I already answered that I knew some jailbaits and know how that works and the Polanski/Geimer case is full of holes and errors.

 

You are the one who misunderstoods me Larre Kikkeli, by stating that

Alright first of all I don't believe you. In Poland, 13-year old girls rape you? Yeah right.

you showed you certainly don't understand why I wrote about those jailbaits.

 

Most people who are inclined to believe Geimer think she was an innocent child, I say she MIGHT have been a jailbait and I stated million times why.

 

My reasoning makes sense and I stand by my believes in this case, we wont agree, but on holy Zeus, understand Im assumong she was a Jailbait, that explains and makes perfect sense for my take on that story I DONT BELIEVE SHE WAS RAPED, beacuse, Ill repeat

@DI First of all Polanski admitted to having sex with a minor, not raping her and thats a huge differnece. This is why I say what I say, he was charged with rape at the beginning(the next day after Jacks Nicholson estate happening) and later all of the charges besides having sex with a minor were dropped.

 

This has been covered by smarter people than me but I'll say it again: Being white, old & rich shouldn't keep you out of jail for crimes young poor black men go in for the rest of their lives. I know I'm probably an idealist and now some

deucebag

will lecture me on how the world doesn't work that way & that it is natural so save your breath. If there is any justice in this world Polanski goes to jail

 

So everyone who has a different opinion and wants to have a discussion with you is called a douchebag?

And yes, I believe Polanski shouldnt go to jail for every reason I stated in every post in this thread, even though he had sex with a minor which is a criminal offence. Im a douchebag, Im not idealistic. Thanks!

[Purkake]

Great thread 10/10, would laugh again.

 

Keep it up guys!

[Lare Kikkeli]

poor old white man, cant even **** a kid without going to jail anymore

 

also i could make up a theory involving aliens, lizard men, jews and a nazi plot to create a master race (than god he put it up her butt!) with all the facts fitting and it'd be about as plausible as her being an evil temptress who just tried to trick a poor old man.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Lare Kikkeli

[Guest PoziomyPion]

You just proved you cannot have a civilized discussion. Im not making stuff more than you, I dont agree with you but I do not start insulting you in any way.

 

I responded to your post and you, probably cannot agree I may think what I think , just exploded with those sentences full of ignorance and swearing. You completely ignore my posts and the point I am trying to make.

 

poor old white man, cant even **** a kid without going to jail anymore

 

LoLipops on a LoLerskates, I am not gonna cry if Polanski goes to jail, I even think he should be sentenced but also I have my reasons why he shouldnt go to jail in my humble opinion. I guess you missed 2323243 posts I made about this and you just read this topic since page 13 like probably most people do.

 

Now , by exploding like you did I believe you can see my point which I made, you just cannot cope with that and are unable to write something like:

OK. I see your point, it makes sense but I dont agree that Miss Geimer was a Jailbait.

It is so much easier to act like a barbarian and start flaming and insinuating it is about Polanskis's race.

How do you know I am white? Maybe I am a descendant of Polish Tatar's ? Nevermind I am just glad you see my point, shame you cannot cope with that like a civilized person!

Edited October 3, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Maria Caliban]

Now , by exploding like you did I believe you can see my point which I made, you just cannot cope with that and are unable to write something like:

OK. I see your point, it makes sense but I dont agree that Miss Geimer was a Jailbait.

It is so much easier to act like a barbarian and start flaming and insinuating it is about Polanskis's race.

How do you know I am white? Maybe I am a descendant of Polish Tatar's ? Nevermind I am just glad you see my point, shame you cannot cope with that like a civilized person!

 

Civilized? You're defending rape with

[Guest PoziomyPion]

So how can you say she was raped! The charges of rape were dropped(and this is my proof). Why everyone sees it so fit to accuse someone of rape, when it was never the case. Even for the case being so full of errors 30 years ago the charges of rape were dropped. Im not defending rape like you stated here

You're defending rape with ‘Maybe she was just asking for a good dicking. Lots of 13-year-olds are total 'hos in Poland.

because I dont believe it happend.

I posted so many responses and what you guys have problem with understanding is that Romaski wasnt ultimately charged for rape so how can you believe in that? You can i cannot.

 

I just heard on the news that in 1993 it turned out that Romanski paid(or was supposed to) 500 thousands dollars to Geimer, it was officialy signed contract between Polanski and Geimer to close the business.

 

Now argue with that.

 

And for the last time I am not defending rape as Polanski wasnt charged with rape. IF this is so hard to grasp than maybe I am more lawful than all of civilized people like Maria or Lare.

 

EDIT: Maria, honestly did you read all of my responses in this thread or just jumped onto the wagon at the 5th stop?

Edited October 3, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Gorth]

Now argue with that.

PoziomyPion, I think you need to piece together the events properly, following a time line.

 

Yes, Polanski tried to avoid being charged with rape by first buying off the young girl (and her family?), then, when it looked like the judge would have none of it and proceed with a rape case, he fled the country to avoid being prosecuted.

 

It's a bit of a leal of faith based on that to claim so steadfastly that "no rape took place" (not quoted verbatim, but it seems to be the summary of your position), since he wasn't tried in a court of law, not because he was innocent, but because he ran away rather than facing the consequences.

[Guest PoziomyPion]

The contract I am talking about happened 15 years after "the rape".

 

As for him running away, well, the judge was supposedly wanting to charge him with rape to gain popularity.

 

 

I will believe in whatever the court will have to say about that in the near future. If the professionals will state that Miss Geimer was raped then as I wrote before(but nobody cares to read that anyway) I will be the first one to admit I was wrong.

 

Quick EDit

 

It's a bit of a leal of faith based on that to claim so steadfastly that "no rape took place"

 

As I stated before I have my reasons to ASSUME those things, I wrote about that earlier so I am not going to quote myself again. And If my assumptions were wrong, then I will admit I was wrong. I just find it ridiculous people think I am pro child abuse, which I find offending.

Edited October 3, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Hell Kitty]

So how can you say she was raped! The charges of rape were dropped. Why everyone sees it so fit to accuse someone of rape, when it was never the case.

 

You seem terribly hung up on peoples use of the word rape.

 

Say you were out alone late one night and out of nowhere a man jumps you, forces you to the ground and, despite your protestations he sodomizes you. Once he is finished with you he flees. You can't identify him, there were no witnesses, and he left no DNA evidence and as such is never found. According to your logic, because there is no one to charge then there was no rape.

 

If I kill someone and no one ever finds out I did it, then legally I guess I am not a murderer, but that doesn't mean a murder didn't take place.

 

If some 40 year old woman sexed me up when I was 13, I would have been ecstatic, proud and congratulated by my peers and family.

 

And if a guy drugged you and sexed you up?

 

I did not say nor imply that what Polanski did was right or shouldn't be punished.

 

That doesn't answer the question.

 

In every internet discussion on a topic such a this, especially if the adult is a teacher, there is always someone who has to come out with a "if it happened to me I would have loved it!" comment. What is the use of comparing a traumatic experience that didn't happen with a potentially pleasant experience that didn't? If a female friend confessed to you that her teacher forced himself on her would your response be to tell her how awesome it would be for it to happen to you? Do people actually have a point with such comments or are they just making a bad joke?

[Guest PoziomyPion]

@ Hell Kitty

 

If he sodomized me I would be chcecked by doctor and he/she WOULD notice my bleeding ripped anus. i also would be evaulated by psychologists to check if I am telling truth. EDIT: I'd also call police instantly so they would at least attempt finding the rapist.

 

I never seen any documents like that in Polanski/Geimer case or that they even exist. There is only a transcript what miss Geimer thinks happened.

Edited October 3, 2009 by PoziomyPion

[Purkake]

In every internet discussion on a topic such a this, especially if the adult is a teacher, there is always someone who has to come out with a "if it happened to me I would have loved it!" comment. What is the use of comparing a traumatic experience that didn't happen with a potentially pleasant experience that didn't? If a female friend confessed to you that her teacher forced himself on her would your response be to tell her how awesome it would be for it to happen to you? Do people actually have a point with such comments or are they just making a bad joke?

 

Luckily there's this handy chart:

 

[213374U]

If he sodomized me I would be chcecked by doctor and he/she WOULD notice my bleeding ripped anus.

Rape doesn't always leave that sort of evidence. I remember reading a study by a psychiatrist that spoke about the disconnection between the physiological sexual arousal "symptoms" and the psychological state of mind. It was suggested that a terrified woman may actually have her body react receptively towards a sexual aggressor, even if the victim is completely paralyzed by terror and not sexually enticed at all. That doesn't mean the woman isn't being raped.

 

It was explained as a mechanism that developed to protect the woman's life in a time when rape was common, as active resistance could lead to more serious injuries or death.

Edited October 3, 2009 by 213374U

[Guest PoziomyPion]

If he sodomized me I would be chcecked by doctor and he/she WOULD notice my bleeding ripped anus.

Rape doesn't always leave that sort of evidence. I remember reading a study by a psychiatrist that spoke about the disconnection between the physiological sexual arousal "symptoms" and the psychological state of mind. It was suggested that a terrified woman may actually have her body react receptively towards a sexual aggressor, even if the victim is completely paralyzed by terror and not sexually enticed at all. That doesn't mean the woman isn't being raped.

 

It was explained as a mechanism that developed to protect the woman's life in a time when rape was common, as active resistance could lead to more serious injuries or death.

 

 

It's all a would and if situation, I cannot really say if I was fighting back or not, but I presume some trace would be left even if I was lying still, as my anus was never "used" for intercourse of any kind.

[Gorgon]

Poziomy, you have defended your position into a corner and now you can't get out because it would mean losing the argument.

 

You don't know anything about the character of the girl Polanski raped. The fact that she had sex before is unusual, but not relevant to whether she was raped. Polanski admitted the crime and fled, knowing full well that if he ever got caught he would go to prison. If you are going to cry 'miscarriage of justice' show me something other than speculation.