19
   

Roman Polanski free

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
failures art
 
  4  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 02:55 pm
@JTT,
JTT wrote:

The hypocrisy, it's so stunning; all the righteous assholes stepping forward demanding justice. These same righteous assholes are silent as silent can be on evils that are levels of magnitude above this. Some of these same folk even defend these evils.

And you would like me to give it a rest. Get real.

You're out of line dude. You're hijacking the topic. It's so unnecessary. Don't run in calling others self-righteous.

It's obvious what you want, and people not giving it to you is not hypocrisy.

A
R
T
Below viewing threshold (view)
ossobuco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:04 pm
@firefly,
I don't think a thirteen year old is capable of informed consent about sex, even if the thirteen year old would be quite eager.

Yes, I know he admitted it. I'm not clear, though, about the Rittenband/Polanski (legal?) agreement, and apparently the Swiss aren't either.
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:08 pm
@JTT,
I don't care to call you a troll, so don't bother with preemptive comebacks. I have told you before, your issue is zeal.

Save it for a related thread JTT.

A
R
T
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
the best artists tend to be a little bonkers, we have tended to give them a little more leeway than regular people so that we don't stifle their art, deprive ourselves of it. This seems reasonable to me...


Getting off with some community service for drunk driving? That is "a little leeway" raping a 13-year-old is only "reasonable" as part of an artistic license to the unreasonable.
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:20 pm
@ossobuco,
And this 13 year old did not give consent, she wanted him to stop. Read the Grand Jury transcript in the link I cited several posts back. He sexually assaulted her.
And, when she was older, she sued him in civil court and won a judgment against him.
Even with an adult woman, what Polanski did to her might have been regarded as date rape.

Polanski's sentencing agreement was with the D.A. But he became nervous about trusting the judge to abide by that agreement and not throw the book at him. That's why he fled. I'm not sure we'll ever know how the judge might have sentenced him.

I think the Swiss had a problem with the extradition request, there may have been some legal problem with it. But this might not be over yet.

hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:20 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Getting off with some community service for drunk driving? That is "a little leeway" raping a 13-year-old is only "reasonable" as part of an artistic license to the unreasonable.
I am not arguing appropriate degree, I am saying why artists tend to get treated differently, and saying that they should.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:24 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
Polanski's sentencing agreement was with the D.A. But he became nervous about trusting the judge to abide by that agreement and not throw the book at him
as I recall the judge had signed off on it informally, and then indicated that he had changed is mind after Polanski had already admitted guilt per the agreement. I think I have read that the judge had a legal right to change his mind, but I am not convinced that he had a moral right.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  5  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I am not arguing appropriate degree, I am saying why artists tend to get treated differently, and saying that they should.


You have argued repeatedly that he should get away with this, so this very particular degree is an amount of leeway you are apparently willing to give.
JTT
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:36 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
I have told you before, your issue is zeal.


Thank you for the compliment, Art.

It would be nice if there was even a modicum of interest among people to discuss and hopefully then to end the brutality, the war crimes, the terrorism, the mass murder of the innocents of the world by the United States and its supported proxies.

This is related. The relation is the self righteous do-gooders who want a justice that is limited by their own narrow, self-interested notions.

The USA wants Polanski back to face justice but the USA doesn't want the ICJ to have jurisdiction over the many war criminals that reside in the US for crimes that dwarf this one.

That's hypocrisy that's way too good to leave alone.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:41 pm
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
You have argued repeatedly that he should get away with this,
My reasoning is different....the closest that I have gotten to the artist defense is saying that what happened on that day was not that unusual for that time in some places in America, Hollywood being one of them.

We think of Childhood sexuality much differently now, and we also have a problem with two people of different power levels being sexual now much more than we used to. The feminist driven effort to reconfigure human sexuality has not only changed the laws, it has had some effect on how sexual relations are perceived. Polanski should be judged upon the standards of the time, not today's standards.

I understand that Americans would like to forget the free love sixties and all the crazy **** that went down back then, and how it carried into the seventies, but this approach is not fair to Polanski.
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 03:47 pm
@firefly,
You are telling all this to the wrong person. I agree she wanted him to stop. I was arguing with Contrex, not you, firefly, about the nature of consent. I'm from Los Angeles, have read about this case near forever; I'll admit I forget a lot, but there are lots of archives for me to double check my memory.

I'll add that Cooley also has a dog in the fight, as district attorney, but I'm not set against his pov.



Coming back to my own questions - I have some qualms about his being extradited back and getting a short sentence (or none) though I'd listen to arguments on that, especially about the Rittenband notes/whatever understanding was in place, or wasn't. I'd also be nonplussed if he got an extremely long sentence, which may or may not be on Cooley's agenda, but seems so.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Sorry, Hawkeye, in 1977 what Polanski did to this child was considered shocking and outrageous, just as it is regarded the same way today. No laws have been re-written or changed. When was it ever acceptable for an adult man to ply a 13 year old child with alcohol and drugs and then sexually assault her?

Free love, even in the 60's, referred to relaxed sexual behavior among adults, not to adult/child sexual assaults.

Polanski was judged by the standards of the time. In fact, he was sent for three months worth of psychiatric evaluation to make sure he wasn't an even more dangerous sexual predator. His behavior was seen as abhorrent at the time of the crime, even in Hollywood.

You seem to have some problems with "feminists". Why, because they have helped to enforce existing rape laws? They haven't reconfigured any laws, rape has always been rape, and child sexual assault has always been child sexual assault.

If Polanski had plied an adult woman with drugs and alcohol, and coerced her to submit to sexual activity against her will, he would have been guilty of rape. That he did this to a child was as shocking and unacceptable in 1977 as it is in 2010. He raped a child. No amount of "artistic talent" excuses that behavior. What Polanski did was considered deplorable then and it's still deplorable.

failures art
 
  2  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:18 pm
@firefly,
hawkeye10 has it in his head that feminism has made him a victim somehow.

A
R
T
hawkeye10
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:24 pm
@firefly,
Quote:
You seem to have some problems with "feminists". Why, because they have helped to enforce existing rape laws? They haven't reconfigured any laws, rape has always been rape, and child sexual assault has always been child sexual assault.
You are delusional...rape has been redefined, the theory of informed consent has been completely redefined, and not only have the sex laws been greatly expanded but the penalty for breaking them has grown exponentially.

It is a new world, clearly. That you are trying to argue otherwise is so outside of the facts that it is impossible to take you seriously on this subject.

Quote:
That he did this to a child was as shocking and unacceptable in 1977 as it is in 2010
I am not about to do the research to satisfy a crazy woman, but I have seen the sentencing guidelines of the time compared to today's for the same crime. The difference is astronomical.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:25 pm
@failures art,
Quote:
hawkeye10 has it in his head that feminism has made him a victim somehow.
feminism has become abusive towards men. I am not a victim because I refuse to quietly accept this abuse.
failures art
 
  3  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
hawkeye10 has it in his head that feminism has made him a victim somehow.
feminism has become abusive towards men. I am not a victim because I refuse to quietly accept this abuse.

The shame of bearing the weight equally. You do deserve sympathy. It is truly humiliating to be demoted towards an equal status. You call it abuse.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  6  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:30 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
My reasoning is different....the closest that I have gotten to the artist defense is saying that what happened on that day was not that unusual for that time in some places in America, Hollywood being one of them.


Yes, but for whatever your differences in reasoning you are still willing to give him that precise degree of leeway: the rape of a 13-year-0ld with impunity.

Quote:
Polanski should be judged upon the standards of the time, not today's standards.


Well that's his fault, he fled. They were ready to do so.

Quote:
I understand that Americans would like to forget the free love sixties and all the crazy **** that went down back then, and how it carried into the seventies, but this approach is not fair to Polanski.


Well he fled their approach, this just isn't a generational or a cultural thing, he wasn't ready to accept the punishment from the era either.
Intrepid
 
  4  
Reply Tue 13 Jul, 2010 04:36 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
hawkeye10 has it in his head that feminism has made him a victim somehow.
feminism has become abusive towards men. I am not a victim because I refuse to quietly accept this abuse.


This so called abuse is something that you choose to define and wear on your sleeve. Real men welcome change and do not consider themselves victims. Real men own up to the inequality that women have born all those years.

Quit your sniveling and join the real men of this world. Oh, wait.....real men do not agree with having sex with children.

Carry on.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/20/2021 at 02:19:38