Thoughts on Polanski's arrest?

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Robtard
Roman Polanski who's been a fugitive for 30-odd years now was finally arrested by US officials in Zurich. Poland, France and Hollywood has risen to his defense and wants him released, your thoughts?

In case you didn't now, he pleaded guilty to:

1. rape of a minor
2. rape by use of a drug
3. committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14 years of age
4. oral copulation
5. Sodomy
6. furnishing drugs to a minor

And then fled the U.S.

Here's a transcript of the trial.

jaden101
Making great art is not a valid reason for not arresting him. If he's guilty then he deserves punishment. His talent or reputation are entirely seperate from that and should have no bearing.

Robtard
Originally posted by jaden101
Making great art is not a valid reason for not arresting him. If he's guilty then he deserves punishment. His talent or reputation are entirely seperate from that and should have no bearing.

Completely agree, superb director; greatly enjoy a few of his films. But that drugging and anal-raping of a 13 year old, he needs to burn for.

Imo, for escaping for 32 years, they should add 32 years to his sentence, on-top of whatever the punishment is for the acts.

Phantom Zone
My f*king God that is terrible.

jaden101
Originally posted by Robtard
Completely agree, superb director; greatly enjoy a few of his films. But that drugging and anal-raping of a 13 year old, he needs to burn for.

Imo, for escaping for 32 years, they should add 32 years to his sentence, on-top of whatever the punishment is for the acts.

Would think about forgiving him if she was hot though.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Robtard
Roman Polanski who's been a fugitive for 30-odd years now was finally arrested by US officials in Zurich. Poland, France and Hollywood has risen to his defense and wants him released, your thoughts?

In case you didn't now, he pleaded guilty to:

1. rape of a minor
2. rape by use of a drug
3. committing a lewd act upon a person less than 14 years of age
4. oral copulation
5. Sodomy
6. furnishing drugs to a minor

And then fled the U.S.

Here's a transcript of the trial.

None of those are real crimes, they're just evidence of the crushing weight of majoratarianism and corprofacist tyranny.


Also how did he manage to flee the country after pleading guilty? Was no one watching him?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by jaden101
Would think about forgiving him if she was hot though.

That is not even funny in the slightest. Thats f*ked up.

jaden101
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
That is not even funny in the slightest. Thats f*ked up.

If you're offended by sick jokes then it's best to not ever read any threads that you see me reply in.

Oh...You missed an * as well.

Robtard
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
None of those are real crimes, they're just evidence of the crushing weight of majoratarianism and corprofacist tyranny.


Also how did he manage to flee the country after pleading guilty? Was no one watching him?

IIRC, he was on bail awaiting his sentence date.

Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow...pleaded guilty to Sodomy...

BruceSkywalker
i hope he gets whats coming to him, but most likely he won't

WhoopeeDee
Meh...they're going to put on trial his actions not his movies.

Robtard
Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
Wow...pleaded guilty to Sodomy...

Was still a crime in of itself back in 1977.

jinXed by JaNx
If anyone really cared he would have been arrested a long time ago. He is a high profile individual. His crime was made public, yet no one bothered. What happened to make someone suddenly care? I guess someone didn't like that Oliver twist remake. He should be allowed to continue living as a free man on principle alone.

Robtard
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
If anyone really cared he would have been arrested a long time ago. He is a high profile individual. His crime was made public, yet no one bothered. What happened to make someone suddenly care? I guess someone didn't like that Oliver twist remake. He should be allowed to continue living as a free man on principle alone.

There were several attempts by the US to nab him through-out the years, he was tipped off and changed his plans each time.

He was under the impression that the Swiss would tell the US officials to **** off and let his pedo-ass go; he was wrong.

inimalist
what are the arguments of Poland, France and Hollywood in his defense?

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Robtard
There were several attempts by the US to nab him through-out the years, he was tipped off and changed his plans each time.

He was under the impression that the Swiss would tell the US officials to **** off and let his pedo-ass go; he was wrong.

yeah, i know that there were several attempts. To me, there is no excuse for lapse in time it took to detain, Polanski. It's been three decades now. He should have captured and drug back to America a long time ago. I'm just baffled...,like, why now?

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
what are the arguments of Poland, France and Hollywood in his defense?

Not Hollywood, (my error) foreign (namely French and Polish) film communities. Poland and France have played down his crimes, for decades now.

-That 'they' nabbed him because he was in Switzerland to accept a lifetime achievement award at the Zurich Film Festival. (I LoL'd at this one.)

-That 'he's atoned for his sins; he's already been punished by not being able to enter the US' (I suspect this has to do with Tate's and his child's graves) and by not being able to make films in Hollywood.

Seems to boil down to "but he's a great filmmaker, so he should get a free pass."

Robtard
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
yeah, i know that there were several attempts. To me, there is no excuse for lapse in time it took to detain, Polanski. It's been three decades now. He should have captured and drug back to America a long time ago. I'm just baffled...,like, why now?

He was smart enough to not travel to countries that have extradition treaties with the U.S.

E.G. In 2005, he testified via video from France in a British lawsuit, for fear that the Brits would hand him over to the U.S.

Sadako of Girth
He definitely should have been banged up.
Elvis too.

BackFire
Glad they got him. He deserves punishment for raping a child.

Robtard
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
He definitely should have been banged up.
Elvis too.

70 year old Frenchman in a U.S. prison for child-rape will likely get 'banged', one way or another.

you get thorns
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
None of those are real crimes, they're just evidence of the crushing weight of majoratarianism and corprofacist tyranny.


Also how did he manage to flee the country after pleading guilty? Was no one watching him?


Not real crimes? You'll make a great parent! rock

RocasAtoll
And another fails to comprehend simple sarcasm.

It's good he got caught. It's sad that people have actually defended him.

you get thorns
And the difference between sarcasm and dumbassery is?

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Robtard
He was smart enough to not travel to countries that have extradition treaties with the U.S.

E.G. In 2005, he testified via video from France in a British lawsuit, for fear that the Brits would hand him over to the U.S.


Yeah, i know. I understand that, yeah, but i was insinuating that he should have been abducted wink

Darth Jello
I wonder if "nervous breakdown due to Charles Manson's family carving up my pregnant wife" is a valid insanity plea...

Eon Blue
As a director and visionary artist -- I appreciate his work.

As a criminal rapist -- I do not appreciate his work.

Ms.Marvel
Originally posted by you get thorns
And the difference between sarcasm and dumbassery is?

honestly if you cant differentiate between the two theres no point in explaining. =|

Scythe
Don't have much to add, since I just think what he did was wrong and he should pay his dues and then some, but a girl in class said something stupid today about this. When the topic of Polanski going to jail for statutory rape among many other things, she said:

"I don't think he should go to jail or get in trouble or anything, it's not illegal to have sex with a statue"

And she goes to college with me...

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by jaden101
If you're offended by sick jokes then it's best to not ever read any threads that you see me reply in.

Oh...You missed an * as well.

You have a problem not me.

Vinny Valentine
I believe there are extenuating circumstances that should be considered on his state of mind during the whole affair; this being that his wife and pre-born child were gutted like fish in their home by a psychopathic cult. Does this make me believe he is innocent by any means? Hardly. What he has done is vile, and inexcusable -- however, I don't believe throwing him in jail at his age will change anything. I must add as well, Samantha Geimer, the girl who he allegedly done these acts too, has asked repeatedly for the case to be dropped.

you get thorns
Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
honestly if you cant differentiate between the two theres no point in explaining. =|





love

Darth Jello
Here's my two cents. First of all, the victim has said that she doesn't want anything to happen and that she really doesn't give a shit about what happened 32 years ago. What did happen seems to me like a nervous breakdown. Essentially someone who had his family killed in a concentration camp as a child where he spent time and felt powerless and then had the same thing happen to him again when he felt powerless to stop a bunch of drugged out sociopaths from killing his family again broke down and acted out his frustrations in a criminal way. The incident was about power and not necessarily sexual depravity. There hasn't been any repeat crimes that we know about and its pointless having a trial cause he confessed to everything and his escape is pretty self-evident.
I say make him pay a huge financial restitution to the victim, the city of Los Angeles, and RAINN, make him serve a year in prison, make him see anger management counseling regularly, and then make him do community service doing what he does best by making him direct PSA's for RAINN, NOW, and others. Maybe if he has good behavior, let him into Charles Manson's cell with a crowbar.

Bardock42
If he raped her he should be punished.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Here's my two cents. First of all, the victim has said that she doesn't want anything to happen and that she really doesn't give a shit about what happened 32 years ago. What did happen seems to me like a nervous breakdown. Essentially someone who had his family killed in a concentration camp as a child where he spent time and felt powerless and then had the same thing happen to him again when he felt powerless to stop a bunch of drugged out sociopaths from killing his family again broke down and acted out his frustrations in a criminal way. The incident was about power and not necessarily sexual depravity. There hasn't been any repeat crimes that we know about and its pointless having a trial cause he confessed to everything and his escape is pretty self-evident.
I say make him pay a huge financial restitution to the victim, the city of Los Angeles, and RAINN, make him serve a year in prison, make him see anger management counseling regularly, and then make him do community service doing what he does best by making him direct PSA's for RAINN, NOW, and others. Maybe if he has good behavior, let him into Charles Manson's cell with a crowbar.

...holy shit

you get thorns
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Here's my two cents. First of all, the victim has said that she doesn't want anything to happen and that she really doesn't give a shit about what happened 32 years ago. What did happen seems to me like a nervous breakdown. Essentially someone who had his family killed in a concentration camp as a child where he spent time and felt powerless and then had the same thing happen to him again when he felt powerless to stop a bunch of drugged out sociopaths from killing his family again broke down and acted out his frustrations in a criminal way. The incident was about power and not necessarily sexual depravity. There hasn't been any repeat crimes that we know about and its pointless having a trial cause he confessed to everything and his escape is pretty self-evident.
I say make him pay a huge financial restitution to the victim, the city of Los Angeles, and RAINN, make him serve a year in prison, make him see anger management counseling regularly, and then make him do community service doing what he does best by making him direct PSA's for RAINN, NOW, and others. Maybe if he has good behavior, let him into Charles Manson's cell with a crowbar.





The term "Good Behavior" would be very subjective, huh? Happy Dance

Darth Jello
Would anyone object to anyone beating manson with a sharp or blunt instrument?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Would anyone object to anyone beating manson with a sharp or blunt instrument?

Yes.

Darth Jello
Charles Manson, not Marilyn or god forbid Shirley.

you get thorns
This thread is getting interesting. I may grab some popcorn. thumb up

inimalist
so, my thoughts on prison are that only people who pose a threat to society should go there. So, Polanski should certainly be evaluated, but if he has gone 32 years with his only crime being avoiding arrest, this eye for an eye shit seems quite out of place.

He should be legally accountable, and there need be restitution, but there is little good in locking up people who pose no risk to society just because it might make us feel better. As far as arresting him and the extradition, I'm in full agreement.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Would anyone object to anyone beating manson with a sharp or blunt instrument?

yes

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Charles Manson, not Marilyn or god forbid Shirley.

Still yes.

Sadako of Girth
I dont know about torturing him with beatings...

Gotta give a guy a chance.








































Put them on "The running man".

Lets see Polanski make it past Sub Zero and Chainsaw. wink

Robtard
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Here's my two cents. First of all, the victim has said that she doesn't want anything to happen and that she really doesn't give a shit about what happened 32 years ago. What did happen seems to me like a nervous breakdown. Essentially someone who had his family killed in a concentration camp as a child where he spent time and felt powerless and then had the same thing happen to him again when he felt powerless to stop a bunch of drugged out sociopaths from killing his family again broke down and acted out his frustrations in a criminal way. The incident was about power and not necessarily sexual depravity. There hasn't been any repeat crimes that we know about and its pointless having a trial cause he confessed to everything and his escape is pretty self-evident.
I say make him pay a huge financial restitution to the victim, the city of Los Angeles, and RAINN, make him serve a year in prison, make him see anger management counseling regularly, and then make him do community service doing what he does best by making him direct PSA's for RAINN, NOW, and others. Maybe if he has good behavior, let him into Charles Manson's cell with a crowbar.

Her thoughts on what should happen to him are irrelevant, in terms of the law. Would you hold her feelings to carry the same measure of strength if she said "I'd like to have him gang-raped by 50 large inmates and then hanged"? No, you wouldn't.

Drugging and sodomizing a child is not a "nervous breakdown"(read the transcript, he planned the whole thing), it was a sexual-thing; the man is, or at least was a pedophile; it's really that simple. There's also strong hints that he continued his pedophile-ways after he fled to France.

He should serve the time he would have served for his crimes of drugging and raping a child, be it 3, 10 or 30 years, I don't know. Personally, I'd also tack on some more time for the 30 years of being a fugitive.

Phantom Zone
^ Thats what I was thinking. If it was extenuating cirumstances how come he planned the whole thing, pleased guilty then RAN?

jinXed by JaNx
Originally posted by Scythe
Don't have much to add, since I just think what he did was wrong and he should pay his dues and then some, but a girl in class said something stupid today about this. When the topic of Polanski going to jail for statutory rape among many other things, she said:

"I don't think he should go to jail or get in trouble or anything, it's not illegal to have sex with a statue"

And she goes to college with me...

Dude, that's the greatest thing i've heard since my teeth stopped rotting. You should give her my email address.

you get thorns
Originally posted by inimalist
so, my thoughts on prison are that only people who pose a threat to society should go there. So, Polanski should certainly be evaluated, but if he has gone 32 years with his only crime being avoiding arrest, this eye for an eye shit seems quite out of place.

He should be legally accountable, and there need be restitution, but there is little good in locking up people who pose no risk to society just because it might make us feel better. As far as arresting him and the extradition, I'm in full agreement.







And again we see where things get subjective. Who does it and how do we determine if someone is a threat to"society"?

inimalist
Originally posted by you get thorns
And again we see where things get subjective. Who does it and how do we determine if someone is a threat to"society"?

the justice system already has such mechanisms

something like:

Originally posted by Robtard
There's also strong hints that he continued his pedophile-ways after he fled to France.

would be a good start

i could sing you a tune of what might constitute a valid psychological assessment... but ya, sure its subjective. Propose anything that isn't... /shrug

Bicnarok
Originally posted by inimalist
what are the arguments of Poland, France and Hollywood in his defense?

Freemason contacts probably.

He should be hung drawn and quartered the sick pervert.

you get thorns
Originally posted by inimalist
the justice system already has such mechanisms

something like:



would be a good start

i could sing you a tune of what might constitute a valid psychological assessment... but ya, sure its subjective. Propose anything that isn't... /shrug


Agreed.

Darth Jello
Why do people always use the word hung improperly? How is increasing someone's penis size a punishment?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Why do people always use the word hung improperly? How is increasing someone's penis size a punishment?

The worst is probably: "sentenced to be hanged by the neck until dead".

Darth Jello
no, that one makes sense because many punishments that haven't been used in most places in the last 150 years involved torture by hanging but not death.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Darth Jello
no, that one makes sense because many punishments that haven't been used in most places in the last 150 years involved torture by hanging but not death.

But you're still not being "hanged by the neck" you're being suspended (hung) by the neck. Hanged until dead is fine, though.

Darth Jello
when it applies to hanging a living creature by the neck with a noose for the purpose of execution or torture, it's hanged, not hung.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
so, my thoughts on prison are that only people who pose a threat to society should go there. So, Polanski should certainly be evaluated, but if he has gone 32 years with his only crime being avoiding arrest, this eye for an eye shit seems quite out of place.

He should be legally accountable, and there need be restitution, but there is little good in locking up people who pose no risk to society just because it might make us feel better. As far as arresting him and the extradition, I'm in full agreement.


Indulge me a little more on this, because while it seems like a logical course of action, where do you draw the line and what punishments do you have in mind when you say "legally accountable"?

Because it would seem that under that scenario, mass murderous could never serve time, given the right setting. E.G. what is Hitler hadn't died 1945, but fled to S. America where he lived a quiet life until say 1979, where he was found/discovered at the ripe of 90. Would you say "let him go, he's too old to be a threat; just make him give back that money he stole from his victims and we'll call it even"?

you get thorns
Originally posted by Robtard
Indulge me a little more on this, because while it seems like a logical course of action, where do you draw the line and what punishments do you have in mind when you say "legally accountable"?

Because it would seem that under that scenario, mass murderous could never serve time, given the right setting. E.G. what is Hitler hadn't died 1945, but fled to S. America where he lived a quiet life until say 1979, where he was found/discovered at the ripe of 90. Would you say "let him go, he's too old to be a threat; just make him give back that money he stole from his victims and we'll call it even"?



My initial thoughts. Too many examples to list but this was one of many that hit me.

Bardock42
Please, guys. Lets not forget that, in fact, having sex with a 13 year old is one of the least crimes one can commit.

There's hardly even a victim.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Please, guys. Lets not forget that, in fact, having sex with a 13 year old is one of the least crimes one can commit.

There's hardly even a victim.

I already mentioned how Polanski is a victim of democrofacism. Though I think the crime was less than sex and more the drugging and rape.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I already mentioned how Polanski is a victim of democrofacism. Though I think the crime was less than sex and more the drugging and rape.

Did he slip her the drugs without her knowledge? Did he have sex with her against her will?

If yes, like I said initially, he should be punished for what he did.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Did he slip her the drugs without her knowledge?

No, he forced them into her mouth.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Did he have sex with her against her will?

She cried for him to stop repeatedly.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, he forced them into her mouth.



She cried for him to stop repeatedly.

Did he admit to that?

Phantom Zone
He pleaded guilty?

Darth Jello
yes he did

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Jello
yes he did
Did he really? Cause I read on wikipedia that:

"Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor."

So did he ever state that he did what the girl said, or did he just admit to having sex with a minor?

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
Did he admit to that?

Apparently he plead guilty but had it reduced on a plea bargin.

Phantom Zone
facepalm I think I see what Bardocks getting at.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Apparently he plead guilty but had it reduced on a plea bargin.

So, did he state that he force fed her drugs and raped her against her will all while she was crying and begging him to stop or did he not?

Pretty easy question I'd say.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Bardock42
So, did he state that he force fed her drugs and raped her against her will all while she was crying and begging him to stop or did he not?

Pretty easy question I'd say.

I think he did.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
facepalm I think I see what Bardocks getting at.

That it's her word against his or that there's nothing inherently wrong with having sex with a 13-year-old?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That it's her word against his or that there's nothing inherently wrong with having sex with a 13-year-old? Probably both.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think he did.

Well, perhaps he did. I don't know, think you could find it somewhere online?

Cause I think without evidence I will stay off the "lets lynch him with aids drenched pitchforks" wagon for now.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
or that there's nothing inherently wrong with having sex with a 13-year-old?

Well that. Don't agree by the way, not getting into this debate thats for sure.

Darth Jello
I think if he goes to prison, Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, and Roland Emmrich should have to join him.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think if he goes to prison, Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, and Roland Emmrich should have to join him.

I think even if he doesn't they should go.

Darth Jello
Watching their movies is like being drugged, raped, and sodomized.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Jello
Watching their movies is like being drugged, raped, and sodomized.

Yeah, and you got to pay for it.

Darth Jello
can we add Eli Roth to that list too?

Bardock42
Originally posted by Darth Jello
can we add Eli Roth to that list too? No, I love watching people be killed and tortured.....on screen.

Scythe
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Dude, that's the greatest thing i've heard since my teeth stopped rotting. You should give her my email address.

I'll see what I can do!

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
Indulge me a little more on this, because while it seems like a logical course of action, where do you draw the line and what punishments do you have in mind when you say "legally accountable"?

well, ok, lets pretend in this case, there were no suspicions he kept up being a pedophile, and it was without question that he would not commit a crime again. How can the state justify taking away his rights? We may wish to see him hang, but does the state have the right to take away his freedom if he isn't going to harm anyone again?

philosophically, I might say no, and that is sort of where I was coming from

I think I mentioned initially that even evading arrest for 30 years would disqualify him from that classification, and if there are allegations of further abuse, clearly he does pose a risk.

Thats a long winded dodge, so, more to the point, I think he should probably lose his freedom. I don't think 30 years in f-you-in-the-butt prison would be of any use, but maybe restricting his mobility around schools and other places where young people chill. Even then, he has proven to be a flight risk and non-compliant with legal orders in the past...

Originally posted by Robtard
Because it would seem that under that scenario, mass murderous could never serve time, given the right setting. E.G. what is Hitler hadn't died 1945, but fled to S. America where he lived a quiet life until say 1979, where he was found/discovered at the ripe of 90. Would you say "let him go, he's too old to be a threat; just make him give back that money he stole from his victims and we'll call it even"?

I don't personally recognize a legal body that would have the authority to "arrest" Hitler, bar maybe the Germans. I'm sure there are technicalities that I would grumble over, but ya, I'd say shoot him in the jungle, avoid any of this mess.

no, though, I wouldn't say "just let him be". I guess I do believe in some sense of justice, however, in a lot of cases, people seem to let their emotions dictate how they feel we should treat criminals rather than logic or empirical evidence.

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think 30 years in f-you-in-the-butt prison would be of any use

But how else would he learn that what he did was wrong, which would then lead him on the path to redemption? Isn't that what spending time in prison is for.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
But how else would he learn that what he did was wrong, which would then lead him on the path to redemption? Isn't that what spending time in prison is for.

That seems silly.

inimalist
Originally posted by Robtard
But how else would he learn that what he did was wrong, which would then lead him on the path to redemption? Isn't that what spending time in prison is for.

I thought it was where you go to learn how to smuggle drugs...

has Hollywood lied to me again?

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
That seems silly.

Which part, the 30 years of anal-rape he'd receive (though he's 70ish now, so he's likely not going to get ass****ed, maybe he'll be forced to suck dicks and toss salad), or that prison is a place where an inmate should learn his wrongs and reconstitute himself while on the inside?

Robtard
Originally posted by inimalist
I thought it was where you go to learn how to smuggle drugs...

has Hollywood lied to me again?

If you watch HBO's series OZ, it's where you learn about life, love and loss.

Also ample portions of anal-rape and murder. In fact, most plots ended in one or the other; sometimes both.

inimalist
ha, I used to watch that show when I was 12

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Which part, the 30 years of anal-rape he'd receive (though he's 70ish now, so he's likely not going to get ass****ed, maybe he'll be forced to suck dicks and toss salad), or that prison is a place where an inmate should learn his wrongs and reconstitute himself while on the inside?

The idea that only 30 years of badly run prison could teach him his wrongs. Why not five years? Or 2? Or a week of civil service? Or making him watch Michael Bay movies for two days? Or a long debate about the pros and cons of child molestation?


Not to forget whether he even did something wrong beyond consensual sex with a 13 year old.

Phantom Zone
Oh dear the gates of hell have been opened.

you get thorns
Why is there a little voice in the back of my mind telling me that if this girl was an immediate family member of some posters their feelings might change. Easy to say I'm wrong til you actually live something like it. Ask Joseph Kopechne's family how that works.


Unfortunately Joseph passed away 12-31-2003 without ever seeing anything similar to justice done, although Joe might have squared the deal recently.

inimalist
Originally posted by you get thorns
Why is there a little voice in the back of my mind telling me that if this girl was an immediate family member of some posters their feelings might change. Easy to say I'm wrong til you actually live something like it. Ask Joseph Kopechne's family how that works.

actually, the fact that people react emotionally and this clouds the rational way that justice must be done has been brought up, at least twice.

yes, I would want the skin of someone who did something to my family. My desire for physical revenge does not dictate the way justice is done.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, the fact that people react emotionally and this clouds the rational way that justice must be done has been brought up, at least twice.

yes, I would want the skin of someone who did something to my family. My desire for physical revenge does not dictate the way justice is done.


I think I might agree with you to en extent but what are you arguing for that Roman should be punished or not? I do agree though with justice people are too emotional in general, people don't actually think about crime on a deep enough level they just want to punish.

Bardock42
Originally posted by you get thorns
Why is there a little voice in the back of my mind telling me that if this girl was an immediate family member of some posters their feelings might change. Easy to say I'm wrong til you actually live something like it. Ask Joseph Kopechne's family how that works.


Unfortunately Joseph passed away 12-31-2003 without ever seeing anything similar to justice done, although Joe might have squared the deal recently.

Maybe, maybe not. Should it matter? No.

inimalist
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
I think I might agree with you to en extent but what are you arguing for that Roman should be punished or not? I do agree though with justice people are too emotional in general, people don't actually think about crime on a deep enough level they just want to punish.

so, worst scenario, lets say everything in the "confession" is true, he pre planned the rape, druged her and sodomized her against her objections. I'd say the most effective punishment would be that he have to do some form of supervised community service while having other rights restricted subsequently. For instance, it should be illegal for him to be anywhere that young people normally congregate. He should also be fully liable in civil court. Also, if he is deemed at risk to sexually assault children again, he should be in prison.

It would probably be too dangerous to have his service be directly related to the crime, re: don't put him near underage girls, but something. I don't mean a slap on the wrist either, no 5 talks at a public school BS.

The fact that he fled the country, probably buys him some min security jail time, if for no other reason than his threat as a flight risk needs to be reduced to zero.

Bardock has brought up the point that the confession might be doctored, so, I'd say he should have a real trial before we decide his fate.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by inimalist
so, worst scenario, lets say everything in the "confession" is true, he pre planned the rape, druged her and sodomized her against her objections. I'd say the most effective punishment would be that he have to do some form of supervised community service while having other rights restricted subsequently. For instance, it should be illegal for him to be anywhere that young people normally congregate. He should also be fully liable in civil court. Also, if he is deemed at risk to sexually assault children again, he should be in prison.

It would probably be too dangerous to have his service be directly related to the crime, re: don't put him near underage girls, but something. I don't mean a slap on the wrist either, no 5 talks at a public school BS.

The fact that he fled the country, probably buys him some min security jail time, if for no other reason than his threat as a flight risk needs to be reduced to zero.

Bardock has brought up the point that the confession might be doctored, so, I'd say he should have a real trial before we decide his fate.

Hmm not sure if I agree with the community service. Yeah he should have a real trial.

inimalist
what alternative would you suggest if he is deemed guilty, though of no risk to society?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by inimalist
what alternative would you suggest if he is deemed guilty, though of no risk to society?

He goes to jail.

Ushgarak
Prison has three functions- to keep the dangerous away from society (via separation and rehabilitation), to give a sense of social justice to the victims, and to act as punishment and deterrent for the crime even if the offender is not a repeat risk.

He still qualifies, even if not on the first, and he should be put away. The amount of risk he poses is utterly irrelevant, especially as it was demonstrated during of years being free that he had no legal right to. Plenty in jail that would like that chance.

Not that he will do much as the whole thing is a plea bargained nightmare he got as a result of being a celebrity. He buggered off when he was worried he might actually reecieve a vaguely appropriate sentence. There's no amount of time that lessens that.

There is no way in hell that anyone should think that it is a good thing to encourage the idea that you can get virtually clean away with raping a minor if you bugger off to another country and wait, whilst still having a good life.

Phantom Zone
^ Damn straight.

Bardock42
What's going to happen to him anyways now?

Ushgarak
Hard to tell. The French and Polish are backing down on their original support, so if the US authorities ask to extradite he will likely be extradited.

But there's no question of a trial for the rape- that's done; he pleaded guility, and on a plea bargain that dismissed any chance of a severe sentence. So there's just a matter of sentencing him for that, and then perhaps a trial for the evasion, which I am pretty sure he'd again come to an arrangement over.

inimalist
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Prison has three functions- to keep the dangerous away from society (via separation and rehabilitation), to give a sense of social justice to the victims, and to act as punishment and deterrent for the crime even if the offender is not a repeat risk.

He still qualifies, even if not on the first, and he should be put away.

b) the victim apparently doesn't want the proceedings in the first place
c) jail isn't necessarily a good deterrent

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The amount of risk he poses is utterly irrelevant, especially as it was demonstrated during of years being free that he had no legal right to. Plenty in jail that would like that chance.

You would agree with the statement:

The risk to society posed by a criminal is irrelevant in determining whether they should go to jail when sentencing them.

even if we accept your "tri-force" of reasons for prison, which I do not, the first of those was protecting society, meaning his risk is highly relevant. statistically, it would appear to contain 33% of the relevance.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not that he will do much as the whole thing is a plea bargained nightmare he got as a result of being a celebrity. He buggered off when he was worried he might actually reecieve a vaguely appropriate sentence. There's no amount of time that lessens that.

indeed, the justice system is lame

no need for it to be overly authoritarian to compensate for those who get an easy ride

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no way in hell that anyone should think that it is a good thing to encourage the idea that you can get virtually clean away with raping a minor if you bugger off to another country and wait, whilst still having a good life.

no

I also don't think it is a good thing to start letting the state lock up people who are no threat just because we feel we need to send a message.

Surely, even if we feel that the state is in the parenting business, a more effective punishment which would bring a greater sense of justice could be envisioned than sticking him in a hole, which seems to be everyone's knee jerk reaction.

Ushgarak
Dearie me, what a jumble.

First, the victim's thoughts in that respect don't really count for that much- ot is the PRINCIPLE of social justice that is important, not an individual's personal feeling of animosity- especialy as she would have wanted it at the time. It is the stress since then that has changed it, but that does not change the fundamental issue at hand. Also, the victim goes beyond the LITERAL victim onto friends and family affected, and in another sense onto the public at large who have a right to expect such justice.

Secondly, I would not agree with the literal statement you have tried to pin on me, not to mention the clumsy simplicity of saying that risk forms 33% of any sentencing consideration. In THIS case his risk is irrelevant. In any case, risk is definitely secondary as a consideration in trial. Guilt is the only primary consideration. He is guility with malice of forethought. The main part where risk comes in is determining parole.

Whether you agree with my three criteria or not, they ARE the criteria and you are simply wrong to disgaree- both factually and morally.

I think that if you don't think we should lock up people guility of serious crimes just because they won't do them again then you are a dangerous idiot who would encourage such crimes wholesale. Damn right we need to send a message- that serious crime is wrong and you WILL be punished for it and you cannot get away with it.

I cannot believe this even has to be debated.

inimalist
so, for clarification, when does that become a personal attack?

when you claim I am morally incorrect or when you call me a dangerous idiot?

anyways, cool, clearly you are correct

Ushgarak
Indeed I am. You can work out the rest for yourself.

If you prefer, I'll change that to your view being dangerously idiotic. I doubt that makes you feel better.

Phantom Zone
Just adding my 2cents. Its the principle of the thing. You do right you get rewarded and you do wrong you get punished. I don't see how him not doing it again is relevant.

Basically you give him community service and hes basically getting away with rape. Sending a message doesn't even have to come into the equations. Its the principle.

inimalist
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Indeed I am. You can work out the rest for yourself.

If you prefer, I'll change that to your view being dangerously idiotic. I doubt that makes you feel better.

no, I get it now, crystal clear smile

WhoopeeDee
You guys are getting work out for nothing.

Polanski will most likely get trial here in California and with all the Celeb favoritism he will be off the hook.

I'm just glad I won't be in L.A. to stomach ANOTHER media circus coverage.

Phantom Zone
I personally think Ush owned. Could have been more polite but I can understand the hostility.

you get thorns
Originally posted by inimalist
actually, the fact that people react emotionally and this clouds the rational way that justice must be done has been brought up, at least twice.

yes, I would want the skin of someone who did something to my family. My desire for physical revenge does not dictate the way justice is done.



I believe you missed my point or can't follow my train of thought. Where I was going is : Experience gives one perspective. Lack of experience leads to ill informed decisions. Theories are wonderful things but reality is what it is. I never mentioned vengeance for Mary Jo's dad, just that justice was never served.

Impediment
Polanski made some good films, some of which I own.

It still doesn't excuse his actions.

Hang the bastard, I say.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
The idea that only 30 years of badly run prison could teach him his wrongs. Why not five years? Or 2? Or a week of civil service? Or making him watch Michael Bay movies for two days? Or a long debate about the pros and cons of child molestation?


Not to forget whether he even did something wrong beyond consensual sex with a 13 year old.

Why not make murderers work a week as a Walmart greeter, that should serve all around. You're being silly now.

Wrong, what he pleaded to wasn't 'consensual sex'. What he actually did was carefully plan the drugging and rape of a child; he happened to get an easy plea bargin because of his connections. The cowardly bastard couldn't even face up to those minor (by comparison) charges.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Why not make murderers work a week as a Walmart greeter, that should serve all around. You're being silly now.


Wrong, what he pleaded to wasn't 'consensual sex'. What he actually did was carefully plan the drugging and rape of a child; he happened to get an easy plea bargin because of his connections. The cowardly bastard couldn't even face up to those minor (by comparison) charges.

It was to illuminate that 30 years in jail is a random number that has basically no relation to the goal you stated in your post.

So he did plead guilty to the original charges? Or did he plead guilty to the charges that were agreed on?

dadudemon
Since his crime wasn't against society, he should pay some money to the victim and get roughly sodomized by a very big dicked dude...then be treated by a physician so he doesn't die. Community service seems out of place since the crime wasn't against the community. I'm not too sure how the victim ould feel about receiving service since servicing is what caused this problem in the first place...but you guys get the point.

Then, that's the end of it. Serves Ushgarak's triforce of justice while making an apathetic victim happier. (At least for five years.) It serves as a deterrent. It gives justice the the victim and he victim's family. He already removed himself from society for 30+ years, so that's all three requirements met. I'm sure getting his rectum slightly torn from some rough sex would be a nice deterrent from sodomizing children for just about everyone except for those into BDSM type of shit.

Phantom Zone
Look I can't f*king take this shit anymore because ive been holding this shit back for awhile.

It seems that some or maybe one person is arguing that even if he didn't rape the girl that its ok if the 13yr old gave consent. If thats the case you can **** off and go to hell.

Please dont give me any of the Greeks had sex with boys and they ended up alright bullshit that don't make it alright im pretty sure that women in ancient greece had their rights oppressed and they ended up 'alright' as well.

The fact of the matter is it was wrong and people can actually be convinced that something is wrong is right just because its the norm. We all ****ing know why its wrong for an adult to have sex with a 13yr old its a no-brainer and its not up for debate.

Furthermore you know why kids are so obessesed about sex, its because sex gets shoved down your throat all the time. Im clearly not saying that sex is wrong and its en evil thing but as it stands in socitey people are more interesting in exploiting people than having compassion what the hell do you expect?

Anyway heres the bottom line ask Hitler what he thinks about genocide he'll tell you its ok, ask a scumbag what he thinks about having sex with 13 yrs olds and he'll say its ok.

Get that its-ok-if-she-gave-consent shit the f*k out of here, find the nearest skyscraper and jump the f*k off.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
It was to illuminate that 30 years in jail is a random number that has basically no relation to the goal you stated in your post.

So he did plead guilty to the original charges? Or did he plead guilty to the charges that were agreed on?

Actually the 30 years wasn't random. I said that the 30 years should be giving to him for his 30 years of fleeing, this would be on-top of whatever amount of time he owes for his crime of 'unlawful sex with a minor'. I wasn't fully serious though, but I do think he should serve extra time for fleeing custody.

He was charged with a 6-7 counts (drugging, rape, sodomy, sex with person under 14 etc.). He plea-bargained it down to 'unlawful sex with a minor' and then fled before he was given a jail sentence for that crime. I suspect he got this much lighter charge because of who he is/knows.

If you read the court transcript, it's pretty clear he carefully planned it out, the photoshoot, the jacuzzi, the drugs, the alcohol, ****ing her up the ass so she wouldn't get pregnant. The man is a pedophile, a predator of children.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
Actually the 30 years wasn't random. I said that the 30 years should be giving to him for his 30 years of fleeing, this would be on-top of whatever amount of time he owes for his crime of 'unlawful sex with a minor'. I wasn't fully serious though, but I do think he should serve extra time for fleeing custody.

He was charged with a 6-7 counts (drugging, rape, sodomy, sex with person under 14 etc.). He plea-bargained it down to 'unlawful sex with a minor' and then fled before he was given a jail sentence for that crime. I suspect he got this much lighter charge because of who he is/knows.

If you read the court transcript, it's pretty clear he carefully planned it out, the photoshoot, the jacuzzi, the drugs, the alcohol, ****ing her up the ass so she wouldn't get pregnant. The man is a pedophile, a predator of children.

If anything he is a ephebophile, a predator of teenagers. Though is there evidence that he is specifically attracted to them and that he preyed on others since then. Also, I'm not going to read the court transcript, but did he in it admit to drugging, raping, sodomizing, etc. or did he admit to what he was then charged with (it's the latter, isn't it?).


And are you serious about 30 years for evading arrest? Or did you just knee jerk that in there because it's about "a poor poor innocent child cryoh cryoh"

Bardock42
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Look I can't f*king take this shit anymore because ive been holding this shit back for awhile.

It seems that some or maybe one person is arguing that even if he didn't rape the girl that its ok if the 13yr old gave consent. If thats the case you can **** off and go to hell.

Please dont give me any of the Greeks had sex with boys and they ended up alright bullshit that don't make it alright im pretty sure that women in ancient greece had their rights oppressed and they ended up 'alright' as well.

The fact of the matter is it was wrong and people can actually be convinced that something is wrong is right just because its the norm. We all ****ing know why its wrong for an adult to have sex with a 13yr old its a no-brainer and its not up for debate.

Furthermore you know why kids are so obessesed about sex, its because sex gets shoved down your throat all the time. Im clearly not saying that sex is wrong and its en evil thing but as it stands in socitey people are more interesting in exploiting people than having compassion what the hell do you expect?

Anyway heres the bottom line ask Hitler what he thinks about genocide he'll tell you its ok, ask a scumbag what he thinks about having sex with 13 yrs olds and he'll say its ok.

Get that its-ok-if-she-gave-consent shit the f*k out of here, find the nearest skyscraper and jump the f*k off.

No

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
If anything he is a ephebophile, a predator of teenagers. Though is there evidence that he is specifically attracted to them and that he preyed on others since then. Also, I'm not going to read the court transcript, but did he in it admit to drugging, raping, sodomizing, etc. or did he admit to what he was then charged with (it's the latter, isn't it?).


And are you serious about 30 years for evading arrest? Or did you just knee jerk that in there because it's about "a poor poor innocent child cryoh cryoh"

You should read the court transcript, especially the second part. You'd be better informed on the situation.

He plea bargained all the charges down to 'unlawful sex with a person under 14', which would have been a couple years in jail, probably less for good behavior. I.E., he got lucky with his connections and I suspect the Manson-thing helped him in the sympathy department some.

I was being factious in giving him an extra year of jail-time for each year he was a fugitive. He should get whatever time added to his sentence for that crime though, be it 1 or 30 years, I don't know the legalities if it; he'll probably use his notoriety and his Hollywood connections to reduce that too, the pedo.

Edit: As to your question about him doing it again. It's hard to find anything online now other than his current arrest. But iirc, he was quoted in saying something like "I can't help it if all the little-girls love me", years after he fled to France.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Robtard
You should read the court transcript, especially the second part. You'd be better informed on the situation.

He plea bargained all the charges down to 'unlawful sex with a person under 14', which would have been a couple years in jail, probably less for good behavior. I.E., he got lucky with his connections and I suspect the Manson-thing helped him in the sympathy department some.

I was being factious in giving him an extra year of jail-time for each year he was a fugitive. He should get whatever time added to his sentence for that crime though, be it 1 or 30 years, I don't know the legalities if it; he'll probably use his notoriety and his Hollywood connections to reduce that too, the pedo.

Edit: As to your question about him doing it again. It's hard to find anything online now other than his current arrest. But iirc, he was quoted in saying something like "I can't help it if all the little-girls love me", years after he fled to France.

This might be interesting.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-30/polanskis-lost-alibi/

Robtard
Unfortunately it's going to be a circus. When all they need to do is get his ass back in the U.S. and make him serve the time for what he pleaded guilty too and any extra time for the crime of fleeing, if applicable.

The Dark Cloud
Ironic that he is arrested right after Susan Atkins dies

Bardock42
Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Ironic that he is arrested right after Susan Atkins dies Yeah, I was thinking that, too.

jaden101
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Look I can't f*king take this shit anymore because ive been holding this shit back for awhile.

It seems that some or maybe one person is arguing that even if he didn't rape the girl that its ok if the 13yr old gave consent. If thats the case you can **** off and go to hell.

Please dont give me any of the Greeks had sex with boys and they ended up alright bullshit that don't make it alright im pretty sure that women in ancient greece had their rights oppressed and they ended up 'alright' as well.

The fact of the matter is it was wrong and people can actually be convinced that something is wrong is right just because its the norm. We all ****ing know why its wrong for an adult to have sex with a 13yr old its a no-brainer and its not up for debate.

Furthermore you know why kids are so obessesed about sex, its because sex gets shoved down your throat all the time. Im clearly not saying that sex is wrong and its en evil thing but as it stands in socitey people are more interesting in exploiting people than having compassion what the hell do you expect?

Anyway heres the bottom line ask Hitler what he thinks about genocide he'll tell you its ok, ask a scumbag what he thinks about having sex with 13 yrs olds and he'll say its ok.

Get that its-ok-if-she-gave-consent shit the f*k out of here, find the nearest skyscraper and jump the f*k off.

Clearly someone's daddy or uncle had boundary issues.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
You should read the court transcript, especially the second part. You'd be better informed on the situation.

He plea bargained all the charges down to 'unlawful sex with a person under 14', which would have been a couple years in jail, probably less for good behavior. I.E., he got lucky with his connections and I suspect the Manson-thing helped him in the sympathy department some.

I was being factious in giving him an extra year of jail-time for each year he was a fugitive. He should get whatever time added to his sentence for that crime though, be it 1 or 30 years, I don't know the legalities if it; he'll probably use his notoriety and his Hollywood connections to reduce that too, the pedo.

Edit: As to your question about him doing it again. It's hard to find anything online now other than his current arrest. But iirc, he was quoted in saying something like "I can't help it if all the little-girls love me", years after he fled to France. My question is really not that hard. Did he plead guilty to the original charges and it was suggested to be reduced or did he plead guilty to the reduced charges and it was agreed not to pursue the original charges.

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
My question is really not that hard. Did he plead guilty to the original charges and it was suggested to be reduced or did he plead guilty to the reduced charges and it was agreed not to pursue the original charges.

I thought it was evident, with the mentioning of "plea bargain".

He agreed (and did) to plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", in return the prosecutor would drop the other charges; the presecution did.

So he was found guilty on that charge. This is what he owes for and any time added for fleeing, if applicable.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
I thought it was evident, with the mentioning of "plea bargain".

He agreed (and did) to plead guilty to "unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor", in return the prosecutor would drop the other charges; the presecution did.

So he was found guilty on that charge. This is what he owes for and any time added for fleeing, if applicable. But don't you just assume then that the rest is true?

Robtard
Originally posted by Bardock42
But don't you just assume then that the rest is true?

I do. I don't think the girl was lying and the way he set it up is very telling.

But that's irrelevant, as I'm saying he needs to serve the time for the crimes he was found guilty of and for the crime of fleeing. I'm not saying he needs to be raped and killed.

Bardock42
Originally posted by Robtard
I do. I don't think the girl was lying and the way he set it up is very telling.

But that's irrelevant, as I'm saying he needs to serve the time for the crimes he was found guilty of and for the crime of fleeing. I'm not saying he needs to be raped and killed. Good, we are on the same page.

Shakyamunison
I think he should do the time for the crime. The only question now is does he get charged with running away? I think he should.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Look I can't f*king take this shit anymore because ive been holding this shit back for awhile.

It seems that some or maybe one person is arguing that even if he didn't rape the girl that its ok if the 13yr old gave consent. If thats the case you can **** off and go to hell.

Please dont give me any of the Greeks had sex with boys and they ended up alright bullshit that don't make it alright im pretty sure that women in ancient greece had their rights oppressed and they ended up 'alright' as well.

The fact of the matter is it was wrong and people can actually be convinced that something is wrong is right just because its the norm. We all ****ing know why its wrong for an adult to have sex with a 13yr old its a no-brainer and its not up for debate.

Furthermore you know why kids are so obessesed about sex, its because sex gets shoved down your throat all the time. Im clearly not saying that sex is wrong and its en evil thing but as it stands in socitey people are more interesting in exploiting people than having compassion what the hell do you expect?

Anyway heres the bottom line ask Hitler what he thinks about genocide he'll tell you its ok, ask a scumbag what he thinks about having sex with 13 yrs olds and he'll say its ok.

Get that its-ok-if-she-gave-consent shit the f*k out of here, find the nearest skyscraper and jump the f*k off.

This post has all of the forum argument elements in them:

1. Rage.

2. Logical Fallacies.

3. Moral Relativism being passed off as fact.

4. A Hitler analogy.

5. and insults towards the person you disagree with.


Cool.



Now, from a more scientific perspective, what's wrong with mating with pubescent humans?

Now, what he did was wrong because he drugged her up first.

I just don't get the huge moral dilemma with mating with pubescent humans.



Edit - Pubescent may not be the term I'm looking for. "Fully sexually mature" may be more accurate. Though, that can be hard to tell when the person is only 13.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by dadudemon
This post has all of the forum argument elements in them:

1. Rage.

2. Logical Fallacies.

3. Moral Relativism being passed off as fact.

4. A Hitler analogy.

5. and insults towards the person you disagree with.


Cool.





Yes thank you.

Originally posted by dadudemon


Now, from a more scientific perspective, what's wrong with mating with pubescent humans?

Now, what he did was wrong because he drugged her up first.

I just don't get the huge moral dilemma with mating with pubescent humans.



Edit - Pubescent may not be the term I'm looking for. "Fully sexually mature" may be more accurate. Though, that can be hard to tell when the person is only 13.

Use some common sense.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Use some common sense.

If it's obvious then there should be no problem in providing a point by point argument of your case.

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If it's obvious then there should be no problem in providing a point by point argument of your case.

Or its so obvious I shouldn't have to. To an extent I already have anyway.

dadudemon
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Yes thank you.

It was an underhanded compliment, but it was a compliment. It's hard to pull that type of post off. big grin



Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Use some common sense.

No thanks. I'll stick with calling it what it is: a moral relativistic fallacy.

"Common sense" used to dictate that African slaves were stupider than humans and even sub-human. You can keep your common sense when it is fallacious.


When I get home, I'll post more details into why this is a problem for me....even if I don't personally hold the belief, I can still justify it.

you get thorns
Originally posted by dadudemon




Edit - Pubescent may not be the term I'm looking for. "Fully sexually mature" may be more accurate. Though, that can be hard to tell when the person is only 13.





And we all agree this goes beyond physical development, right fellas?

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by dadudemon


No thanks. I'll stick with calling it what it is: a moral relativistic fallacy.

"Common sense" used to dictate that African slaves were stupider than humans and even sub-human. You can keep your common sense when it is fallacious.


When I get home, I'll post more details into why this is a problem for me....even if I don't personally hold the belief, I can still justify it.

Listen mate dont give me any of that relativity crap, if you go down that route you can justify anything. Yes anything, you take from that what you will.

Its not common sense that African slaves were stupider because there are actually accounts of African slaves being very intelligent ( and some from particular tribes as well) so I think you had better think of another example.

edit: and to further elaborate people WANTED to believe that African slaves were sub-human so they could continue opressing them. Terrible example.

Don't post any details, not interested, got it?

Ha Son
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Its not common sense that African slaves were stupider because there are actually accounts of African slaves being very intelligent ( and some from particular tribes as well) so I think you had better think of another example.
I think you missed his point. ermm

Phantom Zone
Originally posted by Ha Son
I think you missed his point. ermm

No I didn't. As I pointed out thats a bad examples I get his point however.

you get thorns
Jiffy Pop time.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by you get thorns
And we all agree this goes beyond physical development, right fellas?

Damn straight, in fact no one should have sex with anyone but 13-year-old girls.

you get thorns
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Damn straight, in fact no one should have sex with anyone but 13-year-old girls.





Sarcasm or dumbassery tonight? Help a brutha out.

Symmetric Chaos
Originally posted by you get thorns
Sarcasm or dumbassery tonight? Help a brutha out.

I really should ask the same question, shouldn't I?

dadudemon
Originally posted by Phantom Zone
Listen mate dont give me any of that relativity crap, if you go down that route you can justify anything. Yes anything, you take from that what you will.

Its not common sense that African slaves were stupider because there are actually accounts of African slaves being very intelligent ( and some from particular tribes as well) so I think you had better think of another example.

edit: and to further elaborate people WANTED to believe that African slaves were sub-human so they could continue opressing them. Terrible example.

Don't post any details, not interested, got it?

Wait...

You don't want a scientific explanation for why humans are programmed to be sexually attracted to other sexually mature humans?

Don't you think that's a tad close minded on your part?

And throwing out the fallacy you're committing by not understanding moral relativism is also close minded, don't you think?




Now, don't get me wrong, I personally prefer fully grown women with a brain (I like womenly curves, man. CURVES!) I'm not trying to say that that is how I am at all. I'm just presenting an objective perspective other than "OMG! It's soooooo despicable because society raised me that way!" You've got to have a better argument than that.



Originally posted by Ha Son
I think you missed his point. ermm

Phantom Zone, this gent. is correct. You really did miss the point completely. The idea that common sense is your argument runs very parallel to the fallacious idea that it was "common sense" that black Africans were sub-human. That was some of the very same arguments. "It's common sense" should never be a logical justification.

you get thorns
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I really should ask the same question, shouldn't I?



Needed backup. I'm ashamed for you. Goodnight Skippy.

dadudemon
Originally posted by you get thorns
And we all agree this goes beyond physical development, right fellas?

Survey says, for males, it's very much a visual thing. So, no, it doesn't go very far beyond physical development. That 13-year-old R-Kelly peed on...dude...she looked 20-23 to me. She said she was 18 or something.



Though, that is a sweeping generalization of men. Sure, many men require more than the physical, such as myself. I can't stand stupid dtizes (is this a word?)...no matter how gorgeous. That doesn't change how males generally interpret that stimuli. (There was a study done about people who were "in love." I posted a thread on this. Men are very much visually stimulated, compared to women.)

you get thorns
Originally posted by dadudemon
Survey says, for males, it's very much a visual thing. So, no, it doesn't go very far beyond physical development. That 13-year-old R-Kelly peed on...dude...she looked 20-23 to me. She said she was 18 or something.



Though, that is a sweeping generalization of men. Sure, many men require more than the physical, such as myself. I can't stand stupid dtizes (is this a word?)...no matter how gorgeous. That doesn't change how males generally interpret that stimuli. (There was a study done about people who were "in love." I posted a thread on this. Men are very much visually stimulated, compared to women.)


There are terms to describe men who become sexually stimulated by 13 year olds. Look them up.

dadudemon
Originally posted by you get thorns
There are terms to describe men who become sexually stimulated by 13 year olds. Look them up.


K.

Bardock42
Originally posted by you get thorns
There are terms to describe men who become sexually stimulated by 13 year olds. Look them up. They don't apply if it is just a few 13 year old girls and they basically look 25.

Though, I am not sure what dadudemon means with it being just about physical appearance. Perhaps it is unrelated to laws, but I'd say that the mental maturity is a more important factor in deciding whether sexual relationships are valid. Though just generally, I think that consensual sex with a "minor" (or lets say someone not mature enough to make even a slightly reasonable decision) should be punished far milder than actual rape. And it definitely should not be called rape.

dadudemon

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>