Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by Aeons

 

How about you stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I at any point said I am in favor, a proponent of or supportive of people raping six year olds.
What you need is to stop demonstrating your complete lack of cognitive thinking skills and develop your ability to understand what words mean.
You need to learn to read.

Your beating your head against the wall on this one. There is very little logic in this thread and a whole lot of religious zealots pushing their agenda without considering the times that this took place, the motivation of the players nor the circumstances behind the whole situation.

It's all he was "guilty" so he should hang. Regardless if he was manipulated into pleading guilty or if the girls mom was much to blame in bringing her into the situation. Given that this same group of ATS'ers are the ones complaining that their grandmothers are being tasered or that the banks got billions of dollars.. or any of the countless other topics discussed here, simply turn on the emotional side, turn off the logical side and rant rant rant. If one can't counter the point being made, then attack the person presenting it.

Well following the same avenue Grandma needed to be tasered, the Banks deserved the money and its joe averages fault the economy is in the slumps. The Government is ALWAYS right, and a patriot is a terrorist. Yup I'm being sarcastic. Note the total lack of logic.

I have expressed my opinion on this subject further up in the thread, and I have logically defended it to be derided by a bible thumping moron.
Much of what you have posted is logical and well thought out. Fortunately it is people like you that make ATS worth coming back to. Thank you for your posts.

..Ex

A Fortiori, you are more than welcome. By the way, I've starred every one of your posts.

My heart goes out to you & all victims of abuse. I have a dear friend who tried to commit suicide after being raped by her own father. Fortunately, she survived & has become quite well, & I have been there for her- staying well is quite a struggle for her.

Originally posted by Deianera
Once again, defense of proclivities, hair-splitting about the divisions between paraphilias and the naming of same, as well as trolling people with simple common human decency. The FBI will be very interested indeed- especially about what other sites "the defenders" like visiting. Nothing is secret on the internet, you know. Keep it up & some of you are going to find out first hand, perhaps, that the law is the law.

Humans are not decent, not even the people that think they are. Your group says it's "Decent", I call it just more of the same. We are all just different.

The information I have reports that one in four girls & one in five boys are sexually molested- most usually by a relative or a friend of their family- long before they turn eighteen. One in three women are raped at least once in their life. In the USA. It is a sign of a very sick culture.

I've got a lot of reports with a lot of different numbers. I think recent reports are skewed by numbers of Statutory rapes as well as post-coital claims of rape.

Moreover, the sort of men I know detest the whole "Lolita" & NAMBLA (National American Man-Boy Love Association) thing. They especially hate it when all men get tarred with the same brush, & loathe the sort of men they have to clean up after when they have relationships with people who have been abused sexually in their lives.

Who LIKES having to deal with a lot of psychological baggage, being distrusted or outright hated due to something you didn't participate in and had no control over? No man or woman likes that. What about all the raped men? And no, that isn't a JOKE.

Why can't children be children? Is it that awful to let them grow up normally? The facts of young & adolescent physiology are these: THEY ARE TOO YOUNG, both physically & MENTALLY.

But thirteen year olds snogging thirteen year olds is less offensive to you? Sure, you don't like that either, but it's less offensive.

Their psyches aren't quite "cooked" yet, for want of a better term. Their brains need to catch up with their hormones. When preying adults take advantage of such vulnerabilities & create terrific problems in young people this way, it is disgusting. Such adults are sociopathic- without a conscience; they feel NOTHING for the young people they abuse. What's so scary about dating other adults like themselves? Could it be that adults are savvy enough to not want to put up with sociopaths? I wonder.

Or maybe there are SOME circumstances amongst all the ones you are imagining where the adult just has a lot in common with the male or female they happen to be attracted to... and age or manipulation has nothing to do with it. You know, a mutual attraction sort of thing.

And then there are, sometimes, folk who are so woefully ignorant even though these are now modern times.

You call it ignorant because you live and grew up in a culture that found it shameful and abhorrent. Again, perhaps there are some circumstances where the world doesn't end if someone is betrothed at a young age.

As for Hollywood, vote with your wallet- AND COMPLAIN. Do it online, write to the movie studios & stores to tell them why you won't buy their entertainment or goods, & refuse to wait in line to see movies made or acted in by such people. Vote with your wallet & your conscience. I've done it for years.

I'd be for boycotting Hollywood, only because all of the terrible crap that they create and call art, not because of their opinions.

The average age of prostitutes in this country is 13-15 years- often they are even younger than that. Why? They were sexually abused at home & ran away to survive.

Some of them were. Some of them ran away for other reasons. Some of them are just sexually promiscuous and getting paid to do something that is easy and you enjoy is something they don't mind.

Don't make out as if all prostitutes have the same exact tragic story just because many are young. That's kind of like ignoring that people are all complex and different. I imagine some of those prostitutes would spit in your face for thinking so little of them. Others would probably cry in your arms because of how accurate your statement is about them.

All most social services will do for them is send them right back home to their abusers, because they are underage. You can see them in every major city in this country, walking the street. They are hooking for very little money- in Cincinnati, often for only 3 to 5 dollars. Their average customer? Middle aged white businessmen driving a Lexus or other luxury car, married with 2 or 3 children of their own. The cops here bust them all the time- call the Fraternal Order of Police in Cincinnati & ask! Sociopaths & degenerates all, these "Johns"- as long as they're not "doing" their own kids, they think its OK.

All the above made possible because prostitution is illegal in almost every state... but I imagine you are the sort who want prostitutes to be illegal, which is what creates all the bad situations you've just mentioned.

Sexual abuse of underage minors is no laughing matter. They end up abusing drugs & usually live short lives- when drugs don't block out the pain of abuse any longer, they all too often commit suicide.

Sexual abuse is never a laughing matter, and nobody is advocating sexual abuse. Not even me.


Once again- just because something is common- doesn't mean it's normal- or right.

This statement is demonstrative of a misunderstanding of what "Right" is... I imagine you must think there is some absolute "Right" that everyone is born with. Not true.

reply to post by Orion65


And I won't argue that it is a Stereotype, but it is a cultural stereotype, and all stereotypes have some basis in reality... they wouldn't come into being if there was no accuracy in the perceptions.

And the japanese do trend towards preferring young brides.

Originally posted by v3_exceed

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by Aeons

 

How about you stop putting words in my mouth. Nowhere have I at any point said I am in favor, a proponent of or supportive of people raping six year olds.
What you need is to stop demonstrating your complete lack of cognitive thinking skills and develop your ability to understand what words mean.
You need to learn to read.

Your beating your head against the wall on this one. There is very little logic in this thread and a whole lot of religious zealots pushing their agenda without considering the times that this took place, the motivation of the players nor the circumstances behind the whole situation.

Yes, of course, what extra-sensory perceptive powers do you have that you somehow know the motivations outside what is obvious from the resulting actions? Court transcripts and evidence were enough to convict someone famous with a high powered lawyer, and in a society versus anarchic state then the verdict of a court stands.

It's all he was "guilty" so he should hang. Regardless if he was manipulated into pleading guilty

manipulated would have to be proven in a court of law, but since the judge and prosecutor always have that option of flying off to Europe if they disagree with the verdict of judicial misconduct...

or if the girls mom was much to blame in bringing her into the situation.

different crime, and I'd probably try her, too.

Given that this same group of ATS'ers are the ones complaining that their grandmothers are being tasered or that the banks got billions of dollars.. or any of the countless other topics discussed here, simply turn on the emotional side, turn off the logical side and rant rant rant. If one can't counter the point being made, then attack the person presenting it.

When someone makes an argument, phone me. All I've seen is a bunch of people second guessing a verdict they didn't like with a bunch of "she was asking for it" redux.

Well following the same avenue Grandma needed to be tasered, the Banks deserved the money and its joe averages fault the economy is in the slumps. The Government is ALWAYS right, and a patriot is a terrorist. Yup I'm being sarcastic. Note the total lack of logic.

Yes, that's me. I loved Dick Cheney. Sarah Palin will be the Maid of Honor at my wedding. I have an American flag bumpersticker, and I think grandmothers should be tasered.

Are you done ranting now?

I have expressed my opinion on this subject further up in the thread, and I have logically defended it to be derided by a bible thumping moron.

Get behind me, Satan!

Much of what you have posted is logical and well thought out. Fortunately it is people like you that make ATS worth coming back to. Thank you for your posts.

..Ex

Thank you for yours. As a victim of sexual assault I always love to read posts that are sympathetic to rapists, and more than that I love being called closed-minded by people who have never been overpowered by someone, forced upon, and then absolved themselves because of the way you looked.

So, thank you. Thank you.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Thank you for yours. As a victim of sexual assault I always love to read posts that are sympathetic to rapists, and more than that I love being called closed-minded by people who have never been overpowered by someone, forced upon, and then absolved themselves because of the way you looked.

So, thank you. Thank you.

This is exactly the problem he is referring to. Look, we have the right to disagree with your viewpoint without being accused of supporting rape, that we are Paedophiles or that we are proponents of sexual violence.

If you believe what you said above what I'm typing, you have willfully and openly chosen to believe this about us; none of us have said this.

We just don't think people who find underage girls attractive to be demons. Rapists? I'm with you, Rape is wrong, it's emotionally scarring and damaging.

Don't confuse condoning people accepting their own sexuality with condoning harm being done to anyone, because they are NOT the same thing.

Maybe because you were raped, you can't make that distinction, and if that's the case then I am deeply sorry... but you are never going to understand a perspective if you cannot disassociate it from your own feelings on the matter.

As a result of this, you will be blind to possible insights about human behavior and reality as a whole; much like in Plato's allegory of the cave.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

Originally posted by A Fortiori
Thank you for yours. As a victim of sexual assault I always love to read posts that are sympathetic to rapists, and more than that I love being called closed-minded by people who have never been overpowered by someone, forced upon, and then absolved themselves because of the way you looked.

So, thank you. Thank you.

This is exactly the problem he is referring to. Look, we have the right to disagree with your viewpoint without being accused of supporting rape, that we are Paedophiles or that we are proponents of sexual violence.

If you believe what you said above what I'm typing, you have willfully and openly chosen to believe this about us; none of us have said this.

Okay, maybe we have a language barrier here. What does the word "convicted" mean to you? How about "rapist"? When you put them together what does "convicted rapist" mean?

Roman Polanski was a convicted rapist. He had a trial. He was given a plea offer by the prosecutor that came with terms. If the terms were not met with prudence and sincerity a judge may choose to rescind. The judge chose to rescind. When you are convicted those are the breaks. Nothing illegal happened in his case. Judicial misconduct was not filed. He simply did not want to do jail time and fled the country.

When people choose to discuss the Polanski case and you divert the topic to a sociological, anthropological discussion that would alleviate the moral burden of sexualizing a prepubscent or pubescent in a thread dedicated to the discussion of someone who raped a thirteen year old then do not cry foul when someone questions the sensitivity of it.

We just don't think people who find underage girls attractive to be demons.

I don't think that someone who finds a seventeen year old attractive is a demon. I think a forty year old who finds a thirteen year old attractive and plies her with drugs and alcohol is a demon.

Don't confuse condoning people accepting their own sexuality with condoning harm being done to anyone, because they are NOT the same thing.

When I took drugs I did not realize that I was harming myself. I was having fun. The older people, the drug dependent people that introduced me to drugs did. Did they harm me or did I harm me? I will say the answer is "both". Sex is harmful to a thirteen year old, though they may not know it at the time.

Consent is not uneasy to get from a thirteen year old girl. You're the sociology buff. You should know that young girls try to please others. Consent and desire can be two vastly different things.

They are also a horse of a different color because this young person said "no".

As a result of this, you will be blind to possible insights about human behavior and reality as a whole; much like in Plato's allegory of the cave.

Please do not bring Plato into this as he truly deserves better than to be cited in a thread on Roman Polanski.

reply to post by A Fortiori


I think you're assuming that I said that Polanski was not convicted, did not run, and is not probably guilty since he confessed to it.

The argument began when there was a question as to whether things happened how it is said they happen, and when people assume that a thirteen year old must always be innocent.

Yes, I'm aware of what was said by the victim. I personally believe the face of things in this particular case, but it's my job not to agree and make people question things, it is not my job to contribute to a conversation which is essentially just a bunch of birds squawking the same thing ad nauseum.

See the titles under my name? They are apt, they are accurate. My handle? Also accurate.

My principal?

Reason FREE from passion. Not reason with sometimes passion mixed in because it's what society expects. I am cold, and I examine things from a standpoint of being cold.

Originally posted by Deianera
A Fortiori, you are more than welcome. By the way, I've starred every one of your posts.

My heart goes out to you & all victims of abuse. I have a dear friend who tried to commit suicide after being raped by her own father. Fortunately, she survived & has become quite well, & I have been there for her- staying well is quite a struggle for her.

I have been starring those posts as well. I am a victim, also.

I was raped by a neighbor, repeatedly, from about the age of 5, until I was about 11. My older brother, who was a writer for Rolling Stone magazine, found us one time, in a closet, and did absolutely, nothing. He did not tell my parents, and nothing was done to this fellow who had at me.

My older brother is 11 years older than me. He was an adult, when he foun this guy doing what he did to me.

My brother now has a ridiculous degree, that makes him look like a docter of Sexollogy, and I kid you not, he uses Dr. in his name.

He publishes his own porn magazine, and makes adult films, now.

I think, he got the idea, to earn his twisted income, from what he found in the closet that day, and kept to himself.

Children, as I was, when I was taken advantage of, need advocates, not some sick twisted people, who think sex with a child of my age when it happend are normal!

To address the OP original post. Whoopi was not saying that he didn't rape her. Only that he wasn't charged with 'rape'. He was charged under a different statute of the law. So when they address his crime they should address it for what he plead guilty to and what was accepted by the courts. I don't really see that as a defense for Polanski, it is how any legal discussion should be debated.

reply to post by TheColdDragon


No, I am speaking to the appropriateness of your interjections. Cold does not necessarily equate to being logical, nor does an ability to remove passion from a discussion equate with knowledge.

reply to post by A Fortiori


The ability to remove passion from an argument is equatable to REASON. The less passionate, the more reasonable a person is from a rational standpoint.

Now, you may argue that emotions are primarily something that MUST be considered in a reasoned debate, I'd argue emotions are the ENEMY of reason.

Oh, Cold Dragon, Mexican god of the Viking Deluge, you are such a case! So passionate about your cause! I've showed your previous posts to two psychiatrist friends of mine, since I knew that the trolls would be out & rampaging about my posts eventually.

For a dispassionate fellow, as you claim to be, you are as grandiose as you are grandstanding. You have also picked a very strange thread to belabor your "cause", as it were. It's getting boring. You must have very little confidence, seeing as you are obviously hoping others will start jumping on your bandwagon. I'm seeing very little support, thus far.

You know nothing about me, yet you make all sorts of assumptions, hoping others will agree with you. Why not honestly start your own thread about your beliefs (if the moderators will have it) so that you'll have better luck?

Once more, the internet is not private, you know.

I don't think he should just get away with it, but I also don't think this should have taken this long either. I am not suprised that those of hollywierd think he should go free either.

Thank you, Blanca Rose. My heart goes out to you as well. A culture like this, which seems to be spawning all sorts of advocates of abnormal sexuality with its reinforcement of children being fair game, looking the other way when children are violated, & letting the violators off, is going to have to change a great deal in order for children to be safe & better protected. Since the trolls are out in force, if you & A Fortiori would like, just U2U me. It would be a shame if they started ranting that we're off-topic, & I don't like the way that the two of you are being continually attacked over every thing you both try to say.

Hang in there, girl.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

The ability to remove passion from an argument is equatable to REASON. The less passionate, the more reasonable a person is from a rational standpoint.

Reason?

Some of us who are replying to you in this thread, are also victims. We don't just have passion, we have motive to believe that justice needs to be served in this case.

The reason we are passionate, is because we have lived it. Does that make us passionate in our responses?

HELL YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!

reply to post by Deianera


No, madam... I have no delusions of my affectatious grandstanding as being a soluble or viable solution towards conversion or convincing.

I argue what I argue because the defense of other human beings is above and beyond the temporal whims and bigotry's of any particular age, and even the worst dregs of society deserve some fairness if they've done no harm.

I have no expectation that you will agree, after all, you are a victim; as such your mind was made up for you, and ever since your opinion has been controlled by your trauma. Doubly a victim of your aggresor, ruling your life even now.

I won't get into the traumas I dealt with when I was a young teen, none of them were pretty, but it's easy to assume someone like me has had no poor experiences in the matter.

I will always defend those who have done nobody harm, regardless if society views them as monsters or demons. I don't need to be popular, loved, liked or understood in order to do so. It's a weary, wearing task, but I lend a certain importance to the matter.

In no way could I expect for you to understand how I help you and others like you by doing what I do.

reply to post by A Fortiori


If you think my posts were sympathetic to rapists, you are obviously so blinded by your own thirst for revenge that you will completely ignore the points I made because they don't suit your agenda. Try reading my previous posts before you make statements like that. A perfect example of why the world is in the state it is.

..ex

He is a Rapist pos and needs to die in a fire, that is all.

Originally posted by A Fortiori
3) He plea bargained to a lesser charge. After admitting he did all the things she accused him of.

Wrong! He agreed to plead guilty as his part in a plea bargain deal.

How can you say "wrong"?
From CNN...
Polanski was charged with six felonies, including sodomy and rape, but pleaded guilty to a single count of having unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under a plea bargain. The director, his lawyer and the prosecutor handling the case believed they'd reached a deal that would spare the young victim a public trial and Polanski jail time, according to court records.

The plea bargain was for the purpose of sparing the girl a public trial and to prevent jail time for Polanski, not because of a weak case.

Moreover judges are allowed to throw out the plea bargain of a prosecutor. Usually they accept, but some times they do not if they feel that the defendant is unworthy of the deal. Plea bargains are never a sure thing. The prosecutor did his part by entering the deal, the judge rescinded.

4) He fled the country before his sentencing deal. A warrent is issued for his arrest.

Wrong. After he plead guilty the judge granted a stay so Polanski could finish filming in Europe. Polanski returned to USA for his sentencing and discovered the judge had decided to renneg on the deal....that is when Polanski fled.

The deal was not between the judge and Polanski. It was between the prosecutor and Polanski.

Look pal. You obviously don't understand what I typed. It's self explanatory.

My response (above) to your number 3 statement....was wrong, then I corrected you......that's all.

My response to your number 4 was to correct your statement again.....he did not flea the country before his sentencing deal....the deal was done....he plead guilty....that sealed the deal. He fled after the deal was made, after he plead guilty, but before the sentencing. YOU do not uinderstand the process. The actual sentencing hearing is a seperate hearing and can take place many months after a the guilty plea and conviction is entered. Polanski's conduct should have had nothing to do with the judge's decision......it was a done deal. OOOOO he was photographed with a few young women in Europe...Woopee do!!

The judge was in on the deal....the judge had promised to give Polanskii credit for time served and send Polanski to a Psychological evaluation center. OBVIOUSLY, this deal spared EVERYONE from having to endure a LONGER trial. ALL parties benefited....GOT THAT??

Now smart'n up and read what I say....and stop entertaining what you think I say.


[edit on 2/10/09 by John Matrix]