Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Shame on the Swiss
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 17 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Re: something about enough rope...

I like to see dogs chase their own tail

Jul 17, 2010, 16:35


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

velvetwater
velvetwater
835 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

JS wrote:
Squirrel M. Nutter wrote:
Here is a great take on the situation: (snip)


You say in the title "General question for those supporting Polanski..."


This is dishonest, and a flaw of logic. You stupidly assume that because some of us are not madly outraged that Polanski escaped justice, that we support him and therefore support rapists.

I think nobody here are "supporting" Polanski, rather, we just think that little good will come out from sending a harmless old man to jail. Yes, Polansky should have been to jail, but now, it's too late. An unlikely chain of circumstances made him escape justice for decades. Too bad.



JS, you explained your position very clearly here. It is exactly the same concept I had tried to put forward.
And yet some are trying to twist your words and use them against you. Don't succomb to this type of provocation and do as I did: quit this post.
Those people have zero tolerance for whoever has a different opinion and, even more sadly, are not capable of discussing a subject of this sort without resorting to dishonest dialectic manipulation. More generally they are simply not able to exchange views on sensitive issues and are blind/deaf to what is actually said by whoever disagrees with them.
They are like totally obsessed by some kind of very inflexible morality (and yet some have said that they would flee justice in order to rebel against authority!).
I have tried several times in my life and I came to the conclusion that certain topics are impossible to discuss about or are even completely off limits: for example paedophilia, holocaust, religion, to an extent even political orientation. Just keep your opinions to yourself. It is not worth it, at least in a forum of this sort.

Jul 17, 2010, 19:52


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

cyberpainter
cyberpainter
5924 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

velvetwater wrote:
JS wrote:
Squirrel M. Nutter wrote:
Here is a great take on the situation: (snip)


You say in the title "General question for those supporting Polanski..."


This is dishonest, and a flaw of logic. You stupidly assume that because some of us are not madly outraged that Polanski escaped justice, that we support him and therefore support rapists.

I think nobody here are "supporting" Polanski, rather, we just think that little good will come out from sending a harmless old man to jail. Yes, Polansky should have been to jail, but now, it's too late. An unlikely chain of circumstances made him escape justice for decades. Too bad.



JS, you explained your position very clearly here. It is exactly the same concept I had tried to put forward.
And yet some are trying to twist your words and use them against you. Don't succomb to this type of provocation and do as I did: quit this post.
Those people have zero tolerance for whoever has a different opinion and, even more sadly, are not capable of discussing a subject of this sort without resorting to dishonest dialectic manipulation. More generally they are simply not able to exchange views on sensitive issues and are blind/deaf to what is actually said by whoever disagrees with them.
They are like totally obsessed by some kind of very inflexible morality (and yet some have said that they would flee justice in order to rebel against authority!).
I have tried several times in my life and I came to the conclusion that certain topics are impossible to discuss about or are even completely off limits: for example paedophilia, holocaust, religion, to an extent even political orientation. Just keep your opinions to yourself. It is not worth it, at least in a forum of this sort.


I think it's more like this. Some people express their views in crude ways and insult other people personally, or insult the viewpoint in such a way that it's hard not to take it personally. Other people make generalizations, but are pointedly referring to specific people or viewpoints. I would say we all know by now that JS and Cheeso have a feud that has been going on for many years. It's tedious and tiresome to wade past it, and can be crude and horrid at it's worst. I usually skim past it. However I don't think others on here are blameless in deciding people must not "get it" or are otherwise insulting if they have a different viewpoint.

Personally, I'm a little insulted by your post too velvetwater. You have to be able to filter out the crap or don't bother. But don't advise others to keep their opinions to themselves. I feel you are also a bit intolerant of the opposing viewpoint. You also resort to insults like calling people obsessed, inflexible, etc. If you use words like that, what makes your arguments above the fray yourself?

I personally think the guy should go to jail. I'm pretty disgusted that someone who has power can avoid jail time when he's raped a child. I don't have sympathy for him simply because he's a certain age, or because he has a hard past, or because he's an artist, or because of the time that has passed. Or because he's "paid" for it by the stigma he supposedly has "suffered". It was his choice as an adult to rape a child. 13 year olds do not make good decisions, and it's up to the adults to follow the law and not abuse that fact. Rape is a violent crime. When someone says no, or is coerced by drugs/alcohol etc. And it always is a NO when it's a child. Period. If it's always a NO, then there should always be a penalty. He has not paid his debt to society.

Jul 17, 2010, 20:20


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

velvetwater wrote:
JS wrote:
Squirrel M. Nutter wrote:
Here is a great take on the situation: (snip)


You say in the title "General question for those supporting Polanski..."


This is dishonest, and a flaw of logic. You stupidly assume that because some of us are not madly outraged that Polanski escaped justice, that we support him and therefore support rapists.

I think nobody here are "supporting" Polanski, rather, we just think that little good will come out from sending a harmless old man to jail. Yes, Polansky should have been to jail, but now, it's too late. An unlikely chain of circumstances made him escape justice for decades. Too bad.



JS, you explained your position very clearly here. It is exactly the same concept I had tried to put forward.
And yet some are trying to twist your words and use them against you. Don't succomb to this type of provocation and do as I did: quit this post.
Those people have zero tolerance for whoever has a different opinion and, even more sadly, are not capable of discussing a subject of this sort without resorting to dishonest dialectic manipulation. More generally they are simply not able to exchange views on sensitive issues and are blind/deaf to what is actually said by whoever disagrees with them.
They are like totally obsessed by some kind of very inflexible morality (and yet some have said that they would flee justice in order to rebel against authority!).
I have tried several times in my life and I came to the conclusion that certain topics are impossible to discuss about or are even completely off limits: for example paedophilia, holocaust, religion, to an extent even political orientation. Just keep your opinions to yourself. It is not worth it, at least in a forum of this sort.


For a person who stopped posting to this thread, you sure post a lot here! But thats good, keep the dialect going.

And talk about "dishonest dialectic dishonesty," JS entered this thread for no reason other than to be a troll and attack me. His first post did not address the topic at all. He only talked about the subject matter after I called him out for being a troll.

And even then, he ignored the facts and twisted things around to make it look like I attacked him (as I predicted he would).

Look at his post that you quoted, he says, "You say in the title 'General question for those supporting Polanski...This is dishonest, and a flaw of logic. You stupidly assume..." Except, that was Vivakomeda's subject heading, I just responded to it. JS is not interested in discussing this topic, that's why he has not made any reasonable arguments in this thread at all. He is so bizarrely obsessed with me and attacking me, that he doesn't even pay attention to who is posting what.

Side with JS all you want, but its obvious to everyone that he is nothing but a troll.

As for Polanski, he is a convicted felon who fled justice. No one has presented a legal argument for why he should not face justice.

Jul 17, 2010, 20:27


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

velvetwater
velvetwater
835 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

Cheeso wrote:
velvetwater wrote:
JS wrote:
Squirrel M. Nutter wrote:
Here is a great take on the situation: (snip)


You say in the title "General question for those supporting Polanski..."


This is dishonest, and a flaw of logic. You stupidly assume that because some of us are not madly outraged that Polanski escaped justice, that we support him and therefore support rapists.

I think nobody here are "supporting" Polanski, rather, we just think that little good will come out from sending a harmless old man to jail. Yes, Polansky should have been to jail, but now, it's too late. An unlikely chain of circumstances made him escape justice for decades. Too bad.



JS, you explained your position very clearly here. It is exactly the same concept I had tried to put forward.
And yet some are trying to twist your words and use them against you. Don't succomb to this type of provocation and do as I did: quit this post.
Those people have zero tolerance for whoever has a different opinion and, even more sadly, are not capable of discussing a subject of this sort without resorting to dishonest dialectic manipulation. More generally they are simply not able to exchange views on sensitive issues and are blind/deaf to what is actually said by whoever disagrees with them.
They are like totally obsessed by some kind of very inflexible morality (and yet some have said that they would flee justice in order to rebel against authority!).
I have tried several times in my life and I came to the conclusion that certain topics are impossible to discuss about or are even completely off limits: for example paedophilia, holocaust, religion, to an extent even political orientation. Just keep your opinions to yourself. It is not worth it, at least in a forum of this sort.


For a person who stopped posting to this thread, you sure post a lot here! But thats good, keep the dialect going.


You actually may be right here.
But if you read my recent posts, you can see that I am not really debating on the subject anymore (as I said I don't think it is worth it anymore), I am just commenting on the way people are behaving on this forum. And I am making suggestions in the hope that you guys stop attacking each other.
As per you question about providing a legal argument...I have it (and it is a very obvious one!), but shall I really tell you? That way I would carry on with the debate which I don't wish to do. But I will give you a hint: Polanski is free now, isn't he? And who decided that? Not me or you...

Jul 17, 2010, 21:04


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

velvetwater wrote:
But I will give you a hint: Polanski is free now, isn't he? And who decided that? Not me or you...


Polanski is free because he is a fugitive from the law. He fled justice. He is free in France and Switzerland, but if he goes to other countries, he will be arrested. So, "free" is not really the correct term. He would certainly not be free in the US, that should be obvious to everyone.

A Swiss official said their decision was not about whether Polanski was guilty or not, but based on not receiving some legal documents they requested from the US. He was released from custody on a technicality.

The State of California and the US have not dropped the charges. He is still a convicted felon who would have to face jail time if he ever gets caught.

His guilt and conviction remain.

Jul 17, 2010, 21:22


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

vivakomeda
746 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

"I'm pretty disgusted that someone who has power can avoid jail time when he's raped a child."

I see any deviation from this comment as completely incompatible with a "liberal", for want of a better word, political point of view (the American version of "liberal", I mean.)

This idea that "he's old and harmless, so forget him" could only be put forward with any moral seriousness by the most heartless, dollars-and-cents right-winger. It is incredible that Polanski's supporters come are mainly coming from the left.

Jul 17, 2010, 22:57


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

vivakomeda
746 posts

Second general question...

If Polanski's history belonged instead to, say, Bill O'Reilly, is there ANY chance a fraction of the left would take the "aw, forget it" approach?

Jul 17, 2010, 22:59


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

cyberpainter wrote:
velvetwater wrote:
JS wrote:
Squirrel M. Nutter wrote:
Here is a great take on the situation: (snip)


You say in the title "General question for those supporting Polanski..."


This is dishonest, and a flaw of logic. You stupidly assume that because some of us are not madly outraged that Polanski escaped justice, that we support him and therefore support rapists.

I think nobody here are "supporting" Polanski, rather, we just think that little good will come out from sending a harmless old man to jail. Yes, Polansky should have been to jail, but now, it's too late. An unlikely chain of circumstances made him escape justice for decades. Too bad.



JS, you explained your position very clearly here. It is exactly the same concept I had tried to put forward.
And yet some are trying to twist your words and use them against you. Don't succomb to this type of provocation and do as I did: quit this post.
Those people have zero tolerance for whoever has a different opinion and, even more sadly, are not capable of discussing a subject of this sort without resorting to dishonest dialectic manipulation. More generally they are simply not able to exchange views on sensitive issues and are blind/deaf to what is actually said by whoever disagrees with them.
They are like totally obsessed by some kind of very inflexible morality (and yet some have said that they would flee justice in order to rebel against authority!).
I have tried several times in my life and I came to the conclusion that certain topics are impossible to discuss about or are even completely off limits: for example paedophilia, holocaust, religion, to an extent even political orientation. Just keep your opinions to yourself. It is not worth it, at least in a forum of this sort.


I think it's more like this. Some people express their views in crude ways and insult other people personally, or insult the viewpoint in such a way that it's hard not to take it personally. Other people make generalizations, but are pointedly referring to specific people or viewpoints. I would say we all know by now that JS and Cheeso have a feud that has been going on for many years. It's tedious and tiresome to wade past it, and can be crude and horrid at it's worst. I usually skim past it. However I don't think others on here are blameless in deciding people must not "get it" or are otherwise insulting if they have a different viewpoint.

Personally, I'm a little insulted by your post too velvetwater. You have to be able to filter out the crap or don't bother. But don't advise others to keep their opinions to themselves. I feel you are also a bit intolerant of the opposing viewpoint. You also resort to insults like calling people obsessed, inflexible, etc. If you use words like that, what makes your arguments above the fray yourself?

I personally think the guy should go to jail. I'm pretty disgusted that someone who has power can avoid jail time when he's raped a child. I don't have sympathy for him simply because he's a certain age, or because he has a hard past, or because he's an artist, or because of the time that has passed. Or because he's "paid" for it by the stigma he supposedly has "suffered". It was his choice as an adult to rape a child. 13 year olds do not make good decisions, and it's up to the adults to follow the law and not abuse that fact. Rape is a violent crime. When someone says no, or is coerced by drugs/alcohol etc. And it always is a NO when it's a child. Period. If it's always a NO, then there should always be a penalty. He has not paid his debt to society.


Here, here on a number of points:

1. JS and Cheeso, I don't think you will ever agree and I doubt that you will prove that the other is a "troll" to any of the forum members. I request (just personally) that a ceasefire be called in this thread.

2. Other than those mentioned previously, I think the debate has been pretty civil. It is a passionate subject and people have strong opinions. Don't get too worried, velvetwater et al.

In other points:

1. I don't know if any deductively valid argument can be made for Polanski going to jail. I think in my previous posts and all contributors posts we have seen some good cases put for and against it. Of course people will have more to say but nobody will make a watertight case unless everyone becomes absolutists when it comes to jailing criminals.

2. I think a watertight case can be made that Polanski knowingly illegally penetrated a minor. Nobody denies this.

3. Given point 2, Polanski does not deserve support like this:

"Apprehended like a common terrorist Saturday evening, September 26, as he came to receive a prize for his entire body of work, Roman Polanski now sleeps in prison.

He risks extradition to the United States for an episode that happened years ago and whose principal plaintiff repeatedly and emphatically declares she has put it behind her and abandoned any wish for legal proceedings.

Seventy-six years old, a survivor of Nazism and of Stalinist persecutions in Poland, Roman Polanski risks spending the rest of his life in jail for deeds which would be beyond the statute-of-limitations in Europe.

We ask the Swiss courts to free him immediately and not to turn this ingenious filmmaker into a martyr of a politico-legal imbroglio that is unworthy of two democracies like Switzerland and the United States. Good sense, as well as honor, require it.

Bernard-Henri Lévy
Salman Rushdie
Milan Kundera
Pascal Bruckner
Neil Jordan
Isabelle Adjani
Arielle Dombasle
Isabelle Huppert
William Shawcross
Yamina Benguigui
Mike Nichols
Daničle Thompson
Diane von Furstenberg
Claude Lanzmann
Paul Auster"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/artist-rally-behind-polan_b_302371.html"

Nobody should be "mad with joy" or "delighted" at Polanski's release. Although I put a strong case against arresting Nazi war criminals now and can see reasons not to "pursue" Polanski, I could never be delighted at the continued freedom of either. If a Lithuanian Sergeant who killed 30 Jews was jailed then I would not lose any sleep, or if Polanski was kidnapped and dragged back to the US then I could still eat my breakfast. I just think people could possibly direct their energies elsewhere.

4. Crap like this petition prove that Polanski has not suffered for his crimes. He has friends everyewhere. These people think that illegal sex can be excused because someone is an "ingenious filmmaker" who survived the Nazis. I guess that gives all artistic holocaust survivors the right to rape children, doesn't it? If it doesn't (and it doesn't) then this information is irrelevant spin. I don't give a damn whether he saved a puppy, fed the starving masses of Africa and wrote the world's best novel. When it comes to this case, only relevant details count.

Jul 17, 2010, 23:47


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

hito wrote:


1. I don't know if any deductively valid argument can be made for Polanski going to jail.

He's a convicted felon. He fled justice. Felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment.

No one can or has made a deductively valid argument to refute those facts.

Jul 18, 2010, 00:28

Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 17 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index