+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Shame on the Swiss
Log In to post a reply
118 messages
View: flat \ threaded

5993 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


Topic Outline: