I can find no better article on the Roman Polanski rape case and the film industry’s reaction to it than this one by Dennis Prager. Here’s part of the article:
As virtually no one has ever suggested the girl lied, it is universally acknowledged that at age 43, Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl.
One would think that anyone with a functioning conscience would condemn the terrible act. Or to put it another way: If a middle-aged man raping a 13-year-old girl is not obviously terrible, what is?
Yet, leading members of the film world in Europe and America world do not see it that way.
As Britain’s Guardian newspaper wrote: “The list of supporters giving Polanski their impassioned support read like a Who’s Who of the cream of the movie-making world. It included, among many others, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Harvey Weinstein, Pedro Almodovar and Ethan Coen.” […]
As noted by many observers, imagine if Polanski were a Roman Catholic priest — or a Republican politician — accused of the same crime. All hell would have fallen on the man’s head. The Boston Globe cited the Rev. James Martin, associate editor of America magazine: “If Polanski were in a collar there would be no boo-hooing about his recent plight. There would be zero pity for him. … Can you imagine a petition being circulated among actors, directors, and producers in the United States to have a Catholic priest reinstated in his parish after he had abused a 13-year-old child? If you believe this about Polanski — that his good deeds offset his guilt and that enough time has passed — do you believe the same about pedophile priests?” […]
We have reason to be grateful to the Polanski affair. It offers that most needed of virtues: clarity. It has made the average citizen aware of how broken the cultural elite’s moral compass is. [… T]he next time you see the Hollywood elite come out on behalf of or against some public issue, you can most likely assume the opposite is the morally correct position.
I was disappointed to see that Tilda Swinton also signed the petition supporting child-rapist Polanski. Swinton played the White Witch in the recent Chronicles of Narnia films.
It’s interesting that some in Hollywood are protesting that critics are painting with too broad of a brush. Screenwriter Josh Olson wrote a piece quoted on this Los Angeles Times blog lamenting the hasty generalization of some reporters who imply or state outright that “Hollywood” is supporting Polanski. I found this bit entertaining:
As a rule, when I read the news that a fugitive from justice has been caught, my standard response is to think, “How nice,” and turn the page. If it’s a particularly interesting story, I might tell my girlfriend about it, but until this moment it never occurred to me that I was supposed to alert the media as to my feelings on the subject. It’s hard enough keeping up with all the injustice in the world. Now we have to stand up and shout every time it goes the way it’s supposed to? No offense to Ms. Silverstein, but some of us have jobs. […]
But as far as Hollywood’s concerned, we’re not rallying behind anyone, and it sure would be nice if folks could find a way of discussing this issue without creating ridiculous and childish caricatures of people who have nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Right. What was the plot of American Beauty again? How many Oscars did it win? How does Hollywood feel about Elia Kazan? How did they feel about George W. Bush? No, no, they never alert the media as to their feelings on a particular subject, especially about a specific injustice. And far be it from Hollywood to ever take part in ridiculous and childish caricatures.
I think Dennis Prager got it exactly right.
I and many others could care less about how Jesus responded to Pilate, whether or not that comes from you, CJ, David Jordan, Sharon, whomever…
“I don’t want to get into a scriptural debate with you because they are always, in the end, pointless”
No, his punishment was not determined. He was not sentenced. He feared (and was tipped off) that he would get more than 90 days, given the outrage.
MAWB,
You are condemning kcdad [his behavior in the classroom, interaction with students, etc] based on his opinion of this ‘matter’ alone? Sounds fair to me………….
Jon,
“For what purpose?” You obviously did not go to the web link I provided.
Overall, my opinion is that the women who falsely claim rape, work-place sexual harassment, etc hurt the ‘real’ victims of this horrible crime.
I will repeat…. Based on kcdad’s comments here, I absolutely do not want my daughter anywhere near that person whether in the classroom or outside of it.
“He absolutely was insinuating little girls lie.”
Yes. Little girls (and boys) do lie. If you think they don’t, perhaps you need a reality check with your own kids.
They don’t always lie. I didn’t suggest they do. They don’t ALWAYS do anything except be little boys and girls.
However… how many little boys and girls are honest with their parents about everything that has to do with smoking, drinking, sex, school and their friends? NONE? NOT MANY?
Either way, you agree, little girls and boys lie… Children have been Known to confess to crimes they had nothing to do with because they thought it would make an adult happy. They have been known to make up the most outrageous tales of demons and sexual abuse, sacrificing live animals and other bizarre things because an adult wanted them to and THEY wanted to please the adult.
So here we have a 13 year old who has been drinking taking drugs and having sex in the past faced with a situation with a 44 year old man… did she want to do it? Who cares? She is 13. What is important is what does she want the adults to think of her??? That she is a whore? NO, of course not. She was raped and forced to disrobe and get in bed and the hot tub and take drugs and drink alcohol and have sex!
So… again I ask… Forced by whom? Polanski? Or the adults who put in her Nicholson’s home alone for the purpose of “taking modeling pictures”… RIIIIIIIIGHT
Here is another idea to bounce around your already made up minds…. WHO complained and filed the charges? The 13 year old or her parents????? ” Hi mom I’m home… by the way, Polanski got me drunk, gave me drugs and raped me…. THANKS A LOT for dropping me off there alone. “
MAWB: “do not want my daughter anywhere near that person whether in the classroom or outside of it.”
You are so funny. You certainly don’t want her to think for herself do you? Jumping to conclusions is always the best way to exercize the inquisitive mind.
Get off your high horse and quit pronouncing judgment on people and things you know NOTHING about.
New Voice: Thank you for being a voice of reason. Jon, C.J. brought up the Pilate situation–I took the time to study it since C.J. brought up a point about the one guilty of the “greater sin” that I hadn’t considered before. I don’t have any other guide but the Bible to determine how I should regard the sins of others and my own. MAWB–I guess I taught teen-age girls too long. Little girls often do lie (as many do to save their own skin and sometimes for more devious reasons)–and I think male teachers have to be extremely cautious never to put themselves into anything remotely close to a compromising situation–there is no better way to get a teacher fired than to lie about such a situation. And I definitely know of a couple of situations where students made up lies to get teachers in trouble. (There are, undoubtedly, as many examples of teachers who are guilty). I really am bewildered by your anger–especially, that leveled at kcdad–I must be missing something. Honestly, I believe you owe him an apology for your insinuations–I am stunned. I agree that Polanski was guilty as charged. However, can’t you even acknowledge that the parents of the then 13-year-old girl certainly bore some moral culpability or that they were not very good parents?
If you want to study “sin” and forgiveness in The bible all you need to know is that Jesus said we are to forgive other’s sin. It is done with a word and a change of heart. It doesn’t take a sacrifice or blood or anything else. And to show that the son of man has the power to forgive sin, what is easier to say “your sin is forgiven” or “take up your bed and walk”? Mark Chapter 2. Jesus later tells his disciples to go out into the countryside and spread the good news of the forgiveness of sin. ALREADY! RIGHT NOW! They were to heal, exorcise and forgive sin… with nothing but their word to do it with. Even greater miracles they would do than even Jesus did. With nothing but a walking stick and their words.
(The Lord’s prayer say we’re forgiven ONLY as we forgive others. It is our responsibility to forgive.)
So what is sin if it can be forgiven with just a word?
And… BTW… we are all a son of man (“heir of Adam”). (It says so in Psalms… and all through the Old Testament….look it up!)
Jon wrote: I and many others could care less about how Jesus responded to Pilate, whether or not that comes from you, CJ, David Jordan, Sharon, whomever…
I think this is the first I’ve been mentioned in the comments section without first having commented myself 🙂
Sharon, no offense but your God is not the biblical God either. He is your God, you can ask 1,001 different people their perspective on the Bible and get 1,001 different answers. So please don’t act as if your perspective is the only “biblical” Christian perspective because it is not.
11bravo: not if you ask 1001 people in the same church you attend… then you will only get 500 different answers and one person with no opinion.
New Voice,
For what purpose? (bringing up the girl’s sexual past, drug use, etc.)
Your argument is to suggest maybe she could have lied – yes, it’s been known to happen in these types of cases (I did go to your link previously).
But, kcdad already stated “His punishment and guilt were already determined”.
So, again, (and maybe kcdad will respond this time), WHY bring up all the rest?
The outrage is that this man at the very least had sex with a 13 year old girl (and likely forced himself on her), and then fled the country for 30 years to avoid sentencing. And yet there are so many who defend him to the point that everyone should just “get over it” and let him walk and as such are effectively stating those actions don’t deserve more than 90 days jail. 90 days….
Go back to the very first comment – there was no “well, the girl’s parents are stupid” or Jesus/sin discussion. The “defense” started and has continued to be a trial of the victim.
“So… again I ask… Forced by whom? Polanski? Or the adults who put in her Nicholson’s home alone for the purpose of “taking modeling pictures”
You can go so far as to call the parents an accomplice, but Polanski did the deed. That doesn’t make him any less guilty or deserving of a lesser sentence.
David, you have been known to debate the Bible on this blog, just a little 🙂
In fact, I remember that your consistent and calm rationale replies so frustrated someone that they in turn called you an idiot and an ass 🙂
Jon wrote: David, you have been known to debate the Bible on this blog, just a little
In fact, I remember that your consistent and calm rationale replies so frustrated someone that they in turn called you an (deleted) and an (deleted)>BR>
Yes, I remember…and that same someone quickly vented about it on his own blog 🙂
Jon,
I was following you…………………….. up until….your ‘idiotic’ and ‘as[s]inine’ comment directed toward David. “Consistent and calm rationale?!?” [put smiley face here]
“That doesn’t make him any less guilty or deserving of a lesser sentence.”
NO ONE SAID IT DID!!!!!
Lesser sentence than WHAT? For what purpose? He should serve 90 days in a psychiatric hospital now?
The issue isn’t rape. That isn’t what he was arrested for last week and it isn’t what he is being extradited for.
Stop making this an emotional issue. Calmly analyze the facts.
New Voice,
My apologies for the typo – it should have obviously been “rational” instead of “rationale”. So sorry you thought the comment was idiotic and asinine but I am glad that David appreciated it.
Cool. Just having a little fun at David’s expense.
kcdad, you can’t have it both ways – you say the issue isn’t rape and yet began your very first comment with:
“You might want to learn a little about the “rape” before forming your opinions.”
You still cannot seem to answer a simple question – why do you bring up the girl’s “issues”?
Of course he is hopefully being extradited for fleeing so he can be brought back and SENTENCED FOR RAPE because he has NOT been sentenced for that crime.
11Bravo–I am well aware of the many different interpretations of the God of the Bible–I am just stating my own. However, my own, I believe, is very consistent with the interpretations of those on the religious right. I part company with those on the religious right when it comes to some–even many–social and political views. That grieves me. I am anxious to close that gap–individually and on a much larger scale. In fact, in my life time I have noticed that gap closing. The Polanski issue just happens to represent one of those areas that bug me. Not that I disagree at all about the kind of standards God (our interpretation of God) expects of us. My point of disagreement is the inordinate attention and moral outrage that my brothers and sisters on the right give to the sexual sins (and, I guess, even crimes in this case) of those who do not even profess to live by “our” standards. For those of us who have the same view of God, we definitely believe that, in and of ourselves, we are incapable of living up to God’s standards. It has been more experience that the church (the fundamentalist, right-leaning church) spends more time decrying the sins of others rather than on the “sins” of the church. I think if we would tend to the areas in which we fall short, we could be the example that could well change the world–even the movie industry which many of us probably support more than we should. People would notice. I spent my teen-age years believing that I shouldn’t even go to movies–and didn’t. With some trepidation I broke my own rule by going with my friends from church to see the “Ten Commandments” with Charlton Heston as Moses. I even balked when my father “forced” me to go to a Roy Rogers’ movie. Then came my own rebellion. Then came television, and the movie industry came into our homes and, who can deny, that much of what is so readily available to us and to young people is morally questionable.
I pointed the “facts” about the rape because that is what is motivating all this hysteria.
Everyone is visualizing this monster preying on an innocent child in the park or at the playground in her cute little Mary Jane shoes.
One has to get passed that before one can rationally discuss the extradition. It isn’t about the rape, it is about bringing down Polanski and pounding on one’s chest and declaring how brave and righteous we are for “killing the beast”.
Except, of course, he isn’t a beast and we gain nothing by pursuing this.
Once again, thank you for telling me what you think I know – what you think is motivating “everyone’s hysteria”, that we can’t get passed the “monster” image and that we are for “killing the beast”.
This, coming from someone who just told MAWB:
“Get off your high horse and quit pronouncing judgment on people and things you know NOTHING about.”
Well done. Another kcdad “lesson”.
Oh, so you think all this “get him” press is about failing to appear for a 90 day psychiatric evaluation? This is just our everyday sense of justice?
The article reported:
raped a 13-year-old girl
abused a 13-year-old child
pedophile (which is not accurate… she was not prepubescent as the label “pedophile” requires)
how broken the cultural elite’s moral compass is
to which CJ mentioned… American Beauty
He drugged a 13-year-old and had sex with her against her will
and MAWB added: Polanski drugged and sodomized a 13 year old girl
and Sharon : I believe Polanski is a corrupt person and should be punished for the original crime …
kcdad: I’m glad you included me in the list–sending my own statement back to me makes me realize that I chose my words incorrectly, also–trying too hard to understand the accusations of others. His actions may or may not have been corrupt–labeling him as corrupt is not my call. I’ll try again: Polanski was convicted of a crime and fled before he was sentenced–whether or not he was guilty, the outcome of this case is up to the legal system, not to my judgment. That’s why we have the justice system that we have–that guilt or innocence is decided by a jury of our peers without preconceived notions of guilt or innocence.
AGAIN: ADULT CONTENT!!!!!!!
I didn’t just add that at the age of 44, he drugged and sodomized a 13 yr old girl out of nowhere. Read what he was originally convicted of:
Sex crime conviction
In 1977, Polanski, then aged 44, became embroiled in a scandal involving 13-year-old Samantha Gailey (now Samantha Geimer). Polanski was arrested and charged [40] with six counts: “Furnishing Quaaludes to a Minor”, “Child Molesting”, “Rape by the use of Drugs”, “Sodomy”, “Oral Copulation by Force” and “Unlawful Sexual Intercourse”. It ultimately led to Polanski’s guilty plea to the charge of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.[41][42]
According to Geimer, Polanski asked Geimer’s mother if he could photograph the girl for the French edition of Vogue, which Polanski had been invited to guest-edit. Her mother allowed a private photo shoot. According to Geimer in a 2003 interview, “Everything was going fine; then he asked me to change, well, in front of him.” She added, “It didn’t feel right, and I didn’t want to go back to the second shoot.”[42]
Geimer later agreed to a second session, which took place on March 10, 1977 at the home of actor Jack Nicholson in the Mulholland area of Los Angeles. “We did photos with me drinking champagne,” Geimer says. “Toward the end it got a little scary, and I realized he had other intentions and I knew I was not where I should be. I just didn’t quite know how to get myself out of there.” She recalled in a 2003 interview that she began to feel uncomfortable after he asked her to lie down on a bed, and how she attempted to resist. “I said, ‘No, no. I don’t want to go in there. No, I don’t want to do this. No!’, and then I didn’t know what else to do,” she stated, adding: “We were alone and I didn’t know what else would happen if I made a scene. So I was just scared, and after giving some resistance, I figured well, I guess I’ll get to come home after this”.[43]
Geimer testified that Polanski gave her a combination of champagne and quaaludes,[44] a sedative drug, and “despite her protests, he performed oral sex, intercourse and sodomy on her”,[45][46][47] each time after being told ‘no’ and being asked to stop.
And further reading:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/feature/2009/09/28/polanski_arrest/
And apparently, she wasn’t his first. He seemed to have an obsession with young girls, which qualifies as the mental illness known as pedophilia:
A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=17027
Anyone caught having sex or abusing a minor for sexual purposes (such as taking pictures etc.) with anyone under legal age can be considered a pedophile unless they have been given legal permission by the parents to marry. This information came from a local attorney who wishes not to be named. This is why some, and repeat, some 18, 19, and 20 yr olds are often seen on the fbi website for sexual offenders.
I remind you, Polanski wasn’t just found guilty, he pleaded guilty to the charge of having sex with a minor.
Can we now wait for the legal process to work? I fear that this will soon turn into a vigilante group headed for (is it) Switzerland? 🙂
I lived in Switzerland….twice! It was amazing! Switzerland is a police state and the crime rate is extremely low there. As Polanski found out, they don’t play by other people’s rules.
and to think, Sharon, that instead of this discussion, you could have been making a positive impact on a childs life by volunteering your time to read and interact with them…..
Point of order: As a matter of fact, while I was writing I was mult-tasking–with three children under 6 playing. The six-year-old read his first Dr. Suess book to me. I take care of them while their parents are making an impact–one (among other things as the diving coach for Richwoods–coaching their daugther and the other diver–volunteer) and the father a Peoria High teacher (who was also my former student). I’m resting on my laurels right now. 🙂
MAWB:
“He seemed to have an obsession with young girls, which qualifies as the mental illness known as pedophilia:
A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);”
“prepubescent” doesn’t qualify Polanski as a pedophile since she was POST pubescent.
And where do you get this “obsession”? (“Over a period of at least six months”???)
You are just TOO much: according to “a local attorney who wishes not to be named” and that is supposed to have weight?
I find it all a little ironic that Sharon and KCDad are so willing to forgive a guy like Polanski, but constantly wish to pillory Ken Hinton. Think of Ken what you may, he never raped anyone or fled justice. The situations are not even closely analogous, of course, but I find your compassion for Polanski missing in your outrage over Hinton’s “crimes.” I can’t stand Hinton, but you all ascribe ulterior motives of all sort to him. I merely ascribe ego and ineptitude.
BTW, New Voice, I’m ashamed you haven’t mentioned how the museum group fed the public a bunch of champagne and rufis.
I believe I said God is willing and offers forgiveness to all repentent sinners–you, me, Polanski–there for the taking. I think it’s a great message. My personal forgiveness wouldn’t mean any more to Polanski than does all the venom spewed here–he’ll never even know we’ve had these discussions–our opinions really don’t mean anything in the scheme of things. I merely said that I often do not find Christians (myself included) as willing as God to forgive. My desire for 150 to succeed is the only reason that I have for believing 150 might need new leadership.
I am more than willing to forgive Hinton, if he shuts up, quits and retires
“11Bravo–I am well aware of the many different interpretations of the God of the Bible–I am just stating my own. However, my own, I believe, is very consistent with the interpretations of those on the religious right.”
Very consistent and exactly the same are quite different degrees of certainty. And, the “religious right” isn’t some homogenized block of Christians either. You keep saying “I believe” over and over again and your beliefs are exactly that, yours. They are no more right, no more popular, no more legitimate than your own personal belief allows them to be. I don’t understand why you can’t resign yourself to just simply believing what you want and leaving what everyone else believes out of it.
I just remembered who Dennis Prager is… railing on against the release of the Libyan by Scotland convicted of the bombing of the plane in Locherbie. He is one righteously indignant guy, isn’t he? Why isn’t he as upset about the 5000 Americans killed in Iraq under the false pretenses of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush’s war? I don’t know about Bush, but Cheney and Rumsfeld sure became rich off that war.
CJ.. you aren’t a fan of Prager’s Anglo supremacist nonsense are you ?
Selling T shirts that read: “I would rather be waterboarding”, and Glenn Beck’s latest garbage… Arguing With Idiots… which must be an autobiographical soliloquy.
11Bravo… OMG I agree with you. Beliefs are irrelevant. Share what you know, what you think, what you can imagine… keep your beliefs in your closet.
Perhaps a few years in the slammer would show Polanski how painful forced sodomy truly is.
Of course, kcdad. When I agree with one quote, it automatically means that I agree with absolutely everything that person has ever said or done. Didn’t you know I converted to Judaism after quoting Prager?
Shalom.
kc, I retract my concern about the contents of your basement. You clearly implied the girl was lying and deserved it. You then defended your misguided perversion by insisting on literal interpretations of your intentionally provococative drivel. That clearly establishes that you realize how seriously wrong your implications of enticement were; ergo, pedophilia is not likely among your myriad disorders.
I understand all that and am sure this is all great fun in an otherwise dismal existence, but what I don’t get is that when you clearly meant it, why not have the balls to own it?
Oh, and because you think so literally when it is convenient, “balls” can be a slang term for either testicles or courage. I used it to assert my belief that you lack the courage to stand by your original untenable implications.
nontimedum: do you understand the difference between infer and imply? I clearly stated the facts and you INFERRED whatever you inferred. I did even imply that her testimony may not be entirely trustworthy… I stated it as a fact, as any 13 year olds may not be entirely trustworthy… but more importantly I said it was irrelevant. Whether she was the biggest drug addict or whore in the business is irrelevant… go back… you will see I agreed with that.
So what are you upset about? That I don’t see the purpose in lynching parties?
“why not have the balls to own it? ” There it is again? What is it with you small minded conservatives and testicles… or gonads, as MAWB expressed it? Testicles = courage, eh? Hmmmmm… seems like you some gender issues to work on. Why didn’t you just write courage the first time? Why go to all that expense of effort to repeat yourself?
“pedophilia” as I also explained concerns a sexual attraction to prepubescent girls or boys… Samantha was NOT prepubescent… have you seen the pictures of her as a 13 year old model? (Some girls enter puberty as early as 10 years old)
Please quote for me the section where you specifically agreed with the victim’s past was irrelevant. I only see that you explained why you talked about it in the first place, after much prodding. I am trying to read your words literally and not infer anything that isn’t there.
You first said she willingly had sex. Only after CJ showed you the transcript did you imply that she may have lied. Yes, you “clearly stated the facts” as you claim.
You stated over and over that he was sentenced when he was not. (Again, “clearly stating the facts”) Why? Were you simply mistaken? Or were you deliberately trying to avoid what people might feel is a large part of the outrage – that a person would get 90 days for admitted statutory rape when the victim, even though she accepts that plea agreement, described and continues to claim that she was forcibly raped?
I believe the original intent of this post was to decry the movie industry for condoning and/or forgiving Polanski’s behavior and that, therefore, we should never believe any political statements coming out of Hollywood. I think that the poster called “Sterling” was the only one who spoke to that issue. Are all of the rest of you stating that you will now boycott the movie industry because of its support of Polanski? or will you just not listen to them when they speak ill of those on the political right or in support of those on the political left? Personally, I don’t object to Hollywood personalities supporting a candidate of either political stripe. I do object when they spew hatred about any candidate. For example, I objected to Striesand and Alex Baldwin’s statements of hatred against George Bush (didn’t they vow to leave the country if he became president?)–I just find the expression of hatred to be offensive no matter who spews it or who is the recipient. If we really have an objection to the behaviors of Hollywood types than I believe the appropriate response as an individual is to reject all that comes out of Hollywood–don’t just pick and choose the movies (even on TV) that are less offensive if it’s the industry itself to which you object–or by taking a meaningless stand against Polanski on this blog in Peoria, Illinois–which actually has become an attack on kcdad. I am not much of a sports fan anyway, but I hope that some of you who are so obsessed with the Polanski issue are just as outraged by the examples set by many, many sports figures–who probably influence our young people more than Polanski does. I have long believed that many sports and sports figures are no longer good role models for kids–ever since the advent of television that makes sports such a lucrative venture. I would like to know why a boycott of the sports industry is not an appropriate response to the behaviors of so many sports figures.
One more thought on the whole argument about 13-year-old girls (in general, not specifically the one in the Polanski case). For those of you who have sons–how would you feel if a 13-year-old girl unjustly accused your son of rape? Please don’t interpret this as a defense of Polanski–it isn’t. But will you even entertain the idea that there are young ladies who change stories to make themselves look good or for more devious reasons?
“Please quote for me the section where you specifically agreed with the victim’s past was irrelevant.”
OK
1st post: “Although I am not condoning statutory rape”
2nd post: Yes, Polanski had sex with a minor (statutory rape)… yes she was willing (so what?) Notice the “so what?” That IMPLIES it is irrelevant.
3rd post: “YES… Samantha was a victim. ”
5th post: “neither the girl or Polanski are responsible for her being there… ”
You’re welcome
1st post deals with statutory rape only – NOT the victim’s past (virginity, drug use, etc.) and whether or not it is irrelevant
2nd post deals with whether or not she was willing (and misstates her own assertions) – NOT the victims past
3rd post states only that she was a victim – NOT the victim’s past
5th post states deals with the responsibility of why she was there – NOT the victim’s past
You sit there and decry people for inferring something they think you implied (that she wasn’t raped, that it was no big deal, etc.) and yet expect them to infer your “good intentions” when you NOW claim that her past is irrelevant (well after you described it).
Why didn’t you address the rest of the questions? Are we to INFER that you had some reason to misstate the facts? Or is your answer similarly lame as the last?
“Beliefs are irrelevant. Share what you know, what you think, what you can imagine… keep your beliefs in your closet.”
Uhh, is that what you know, think, imagine or believe?
Let’s try this out a little. Recently you said:
“Might is not right… and never has been. The exercise of might over the weak is ALWAYS wrong.”
I must assume that either
1. You don’t BELIEVE that or
2. You say one thing (don’t share your beliefs) and yet do another (share your beliefs).
Statutory rape is predicated on the fact that the only thing relevant IS the victim’s age… ergo ANYthing else is irrelevant…including her past.
Her willingness or lack there of is about her history and as i said IRRELEVANT.
Yes, she is a victim irregardless of any past, any willingness, any teasing behavior, any naivete, any drug use, any poor judgment… SO all that is irrelevant.
How about you find a post that I said her past WAS relevant to Polanski’s guilt or innocence on the charge of statutory rape????????????????????????????????????
“(that she wasn’t raped, that it was no big deal, etc.)” THAT is not what I wrote… post the entire quoted sentence.
Jon, don’t be an ass. Ask a question . Don’t bury it in so much BULLSH*T that I can’t find it.
“Might is not right… and never has been. The exercise of might over the weak is ALWAYS wrong.”
I must assume that either
1. You don’t BELIEVE that or
2. You say one thing (don’t share your beliefs) and yet do another (share your beliefs).
HUH? I don’t believe what? Belief is irrelevant. I have experienced that statement to be true. History bears out the truth of that statement. It is what is known as an aphorism.
Do you know THE DIFFERENCE between a belief and a thought? Do you know the difference between just imagining something and having experienced something?
Stop assuming and start THINKING!
“You first said she willingly had sex. Only after CJ showed you the transcript did you imply that she may have lied. Yes, you “clearly stated the facts” as you claim.”
Puh-leese
Were there any cuts, bruises, defensive wounds or damage to the apartment? No. She did not resist. Perhaps she said no, perhaps she didn’t. It doesn’t matter. It is still statutory rape.
Yes… she willingly had sex… MANY TIMES.
Keep digging yourself a hole. Keep calling me names. Keep saying her past is irrelevant, but then bring up again that she had sex MANY TIMES. “She did not resist” so it was willing? A 13 year old girl says NO to a 40+ year old man but because she doesn’t physically fight him off, it was willing? Oh, yeah, it is irrelevant in this case because she was a minor. We are not to infer that you were implying that if she were not a minor it STILL would have been “willing”? If not – WHAT PURPOSE of your comment?
Keep avoiding the question about why you would claim he was already sentenced.
Try to turn the argument –
“How about you find a post that I said her past WAS relevant to Polanski’s guilt or innocence on the charge of statutory rape????????????????????????????????????”
I never said you specifically said that. I only asked why you keep bringing up the past and PROVED that it was only a few posts ago that you actually SAID there was no relevance (and yet KEEP bringing it up).
You make it far too easy to point out your hypocrisies – here’s another from your last two posts:
“Stop assuming and start THINKING!”
Assuming being the key word (not your attack that I am not thinking). Compare that to a post earlier in this very thread:
“I pointed the “facts” about the rape because that is what is motivating all this hysteria.
Everyone is visualizing this monster preying on an innocent child in the park or at the playground in her cute little Mary Jane shoes.
One has to get passed that before one can rationally discuss the extradition. It isn’t about the rape, it is about bringing down Polanski and pounding on one’s chest and declaring how brave and righteous we are for “killing the beast”.
Nope, no assumptions made there.
“Belief is irrelevant.”
Do YOU know the meaning of irrelevant? Apparently not – whether it is about the victim’s past, or one’s beliefs – you continually bring them up – for what purpose I have no clue (I wouldn’t want to INFER anything you might be IMPLYING).
Don’t feed the troll. It really isn’t worth it. I don’t know what I was thinking by responding earlier.
Jon – I know the meaning of irrelevant. Irrelevant = kcdad.
“A 13 year old girl says NO to a 40+ year old man” and you know this how? Because she testified in court to it? Why is it you can’t “get it”? She was a model, a wanna be actress with the world famous Roman Polanski… Drugs weren’t new to her, alcohol wasn’t new to her, sex wasn’t new to her… she knew the drill… which is why I am convinced she DIDN’T say no to him.
It doesn’t make what Polanski did right or justified or even a little ok… that is not what he is being extradited for!!!! All of this righteous indignation is about fleeing the court’s jurisdiction.
It is the conservative moral vanguards of truth that are all upset about his monster raping and sodomizing a 13 year old little girl who fought him all she could and finally succumbed to his violent forceful animal desires.
It isn’t about her past, or his. It isn’t about what happened or didn’t happen that night. It is about whether he should be arrested NOW, 30 years later and dragged back to face a lynch mob of you fanatical moral hypocrites.
Troll. C.J.???? I see you never responded to the scriptural corrections I provided for you… can’t face the truth of your own beliefs? You think I am troll.. kick me off this site.
Sud O Nym.
My apologies for not keeping up on the museum issue [the REAL CRIME we should all be discussing here].
The museum group has been ‘feeding’ the people of Peoria something for a LONG time, and it hasn’t been champagne and/or rufis…………………..