Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
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.
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?
<>
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.
<>
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.
<>
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.
the founder of your religion was a pedophile polygamist rapist.
sick.
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.
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.
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
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 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 think he did actually address it as being a somewhat playful jab
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.
In the example, I wanted to establish the deviant mind and intentions of Polanski.
Hold on.
Some here would suggest the photos be considered "art".
<>
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 pedophiles in this thread?
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.
And there were some apologizing for Polanski, which most thought was disgusting.
<>
, 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?
<>
Hold on.
Some here would suggest the photos be considered "art".
<>