I'm glad Roman Polanski finally got caught!

[Irvine511]

In the 1800s I think one became an adult alot earlier than in our day and age.

Can we get back to Roman Polanski now?



<>

the founder of your religion was a pedophile polygamist rapist.

sick.

 

[Jive Turkey]

All this has nothing to do with Roman Polanski, however I will answer your questions in that they seem somewhat sincere.


At that day and age, for the right reasons -yes.


We know that women married before they were 18 yrs of age much more frequently in the 1800s than they do today. Back then it was culturally acceptable 150 years ago -more so then it is today. People lived shorter life spans 150 years ago, perhaps thats why they married younger.

I do not think the age of consent was exactly 18 back then-could have been younger, or w parental consent etc.

Also I would refer you to this:




We do know through societal changes and further revelation that polygamy was banned over 100 yrs ago in the LDS Church, and that the LDS Church honors and respects the laws of the land encouraging marriages at legal ages only.

<>

Fair enough. I dont mean to join the pile on, there just seems to be so much contradiction when it comes to organized religion that it really irks me sometimes.

 

[Irvine511]

there's just contradiction when it comes to diamond.

i mean, how can someone be so HOT and COOL at once.

 

[diamond]

the founder of your religion was a pedophile polygamist rapist.

sick.

So start a new thread about it, cast all the aspersions you want there- he's not on trail here.

Hate elsewhere.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

So start a new thread about it, cast all the aspersions you want there- he's not on trail here.

Hate elsewhere.

<>

you don't see the irony here?

you're on a soapbox about Polanski, and trying to indict "some" on here and in Los Angeles and Paris or whatever, when you have the same issue in your own back yard.

 

[LemonMelon]

part of my distaste with this whole thing is that the typical conservative jihadists -- like Michelle Malkin and diamond -- are trying to use this single incident as proof that everyone in Hollywood (or France) are either, 1) ok with child rape, because sex is natural, man, so just pop a 'lude and relax because if it feels good, do it, and God Is Dead so why should you worry, and yeah, man, relax, and you know these people all secretly support NAMBLA; or, 2) the man is an artist! and therefore he's allowed to do whatever he wants for the name of art.

so, that's where my discomfort with some of the anger surrounding this event comes from. it's been politicized by many on the right as an even that "proves" the moral depravity of Hollywood/France/artists.

i also don't think it's out of bounds to point out that Polanski was a Holocaust survivor, did come from a different culture and time period, even in the 1960s 13 and 14 year olds could be married (see Loretta Lynn, Jerry Lee Lewis), he is a great artist, his first wife was Sharon Tate who was brutally murdered by the Manson people and had their child literally cut out of her womb, and that Polanski has lived a productive life with absolutely no further issues. it's clear that Polanksi isn't a monster trolling the playgrounds in a white van with a mattress in the back.

however, he did do a very bad thing, and there's no getting around that fact. a serious crime was committed, and he fled the country. he has now been caught. and something should happen.

This is absolutely correct.

I would have had nothing else to say, if you hadn't gone this route...

the founder of your religion was a pedophile polygamist rapist.

sick.

This is only relevant if <> attempts to justify Smith's actions (he gave them context a few posts ago, but did not specifically defend them) and/or practices them himself. Otherwise, you're holding him accountable for the sins of others. I know this is a really easy mark, but, while I comprehend the irony, I don't understand its relevancy to this discussion, or at least <>'s place within it.

 

[Jive Turkey]

While I generally dont agree with much of what Diamond says, I'll have to side with him and LemonMelon on this, Irvine. If you go far enough back in any religion, you'll find some pretty fucked up practices. Theres a whole other discussion to be had there, and I would like to get into it myself, but Diamond is right in that it probably doesnt belong in this thread. I was guilty of it too though (the tangent, not the rapin')

 

[Irvine511]

it was diamond's earlier politicized posturing about an entirely non-political issue -- about how "some" think that child rape is art -- that brought upon the digression.

 

[Jive Turkey]

it was diamond's earlier politicized posturing about an entirely non-political issue -- about how "some" think that child rape is art -- that brought upon the digression.

I know man, thats how I got caught up in it too, as I found it quite insulting.

 

[LemonMelon]

it was diamond's earlier politicized posturing about an entirely non-political issue -- about how "some" think that child rape is art -- that brought upon the digression.

Ah. That's understandable. I read the entire thread up to page 7 so and the two topics seemed to bleed together a bit to me, unnecessarily so.

Anyways, enough forum policing for me. Back to the doughnut shop.

 

[coolian2]

yet i don't think he's actually followed up that statement, so it's just a typical case of him spewing bullshit to get a reaction. that, or he decided to claim the high moral ground (which is beyond ironic) by painting "some" in fym with the pedophile brush as though that gave him the automatic win in the argument.

 

[Jive Turkey]

yet i don't think he's actually followed up that statement, so it's just a typical case of him spewing bullshit to get a reaction. that, or he decided to claim the high moral ground (which is beyond ironic) by painting "some" in fym with the pedophile brush as though that gave him the automatic win in the argument.

I think he did actually address it as being a somewhat playful jab

 

[coolian2]

I think he did actually address it as being a somewhat playful jab

i stopped reading the thread when i thought my eyes would roll out of my head.

but still, poor form for a playful jab. to suggest other people on the forum defend pedophilia or whatever should be the kind of thing that would warrant a warning, especially given his history. but i'm not a mod

 

[Irvine511]

yet i don't think he's actually followed up that statement, so it's just a typical case of him spewing bullshit to get a reaction. that, or he decided to claim the high moral ground (which is beyond ironic) by painting "some" in fym with the pedophile brush as though that gave him the automatic win in the argument.

it's also going around on the right wing blogs -- Hollywood defends pedophilia in the name of art! or, Hollywood thinks pedophilia is art!

 

[diamond]

it was diamond's earlier politicized posturing about an entirely non-political issue -- about how "some" think that child rape is art -- that brought upon the digression.

Incorrect, never said child rape was art-that's sick.

I merely stated that illicit photos of naked kids by pedophiles *could* considered "art" by pedophiles and perhaps a few whacked out supporters of Polanski-and provided context with different scenarios.

In the example, I wanted to establish the deviant mind and intentions of Polanski.

That's all I stated, and then you brought in early Mormonism for some unknown reason.

So, lets move on now.

<>

 

[diamond]

I think he did actually address it as being a somewhat playful jab

Correct, thank you JT.

<>

 

[diamond]

you don't see the irony here?

you're on a soapbox about Polanski, and trying to indict "some" on here and in Los Angeles and Paris or whatever, when you have the same issue in your own back yard.

No we don't-you want to make it that.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

In the example, I wanted to establish the deviant mind and intentions of Polanski.

by blaming "some" in this thread?

 

[diamond]

by blaming "some" in this thread?

Who did I blame?

<>

 

[coolian2]

oh come on.

 

[Irvine511]

Hold on.

Some here would suggest the photos be considered "art".

<>

so, who are the pedophiles in this thread?

Said in jest, for the defenders and sympathizers of Polanski here.

Often child rapists and predators take photos of their victims, and sickly claim the photos are "art". And it wouldn't be too far of a logical leap for some Polanski sympathizers to claim the same.

so, who are the "defenders and sympathizers" of Polanski here, who are obviously really into pedophile art as well?

 

[diamond]

so, who are the pedophiles in this thread?

I never said anyone other than Polanski was a pedophile, but you did.

<>

 

[LemonMelon]

Who did I blame?

the defenders and sympathizers of Polanski here

Who here is defending Polanski's actions?

To apologize, palliate for or rationalize his actions is an indirect way of defending him.

 

[diamond]

And there were some apologizing for Polanski, which most thought was disgusting.

<>

 

[Irvine511]

And there were some apologizing for Polanski, which most thought was disgusting.

<>

you did your best.

 

[diamond]

, who are obviously really into pedophile art as well?

Never said that, I said there "could" be some that would defend Polanski if he were caught w illicit photos only, and I said it in jest.

So, can we move on, or do you want to attack my religion again?

<>

 

[Irvine511]

Never said that, I said there "could" be some that would defend Polanski if he were caught w illicit photos only, and I said it in jest.

So, can we move on, or do you want to attack my religion again?

<>

let's go get ice cream and talk about it. you'll feel better.

 

[diamond]

good nite boo-boo.


<>

 

[coolian2]

let's just refresh our memories on what diamond said.

Hold on.

Some here would suggest the photos be considered "art".

<>

doesn't sound remotely similar to what he's trying to justify saying now.

 

[Irvine511]

good nite boo-boo.


<>

i can never stay mad at you .