It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Whoopi says its not "rape-rape"

page: 16
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


I am saying various things, Anecdote is not the singular of evidence.

Negative experience creates bias, the stronger the negative experience the more likely an unreasonable bias exists.


I am a subject matter expert in what it feels like to have been sexually assaulted. If I was so biased I would not have visited the gentleman in question to forgive him. Forgiveness was necessary. However, he is a criminal and should not be allowed to do that to someone else.


Experience in and of itself is not invalid. Personal experience is not proof of anything, but it is the foundation of opinion.
The emotions derived from personal experience drive opinion, but when I say that I saw a white house today then my having seen it is evidence of its existence.


Opinions, rationally, can be said to have a value. Valueless opinions are from people who are incapable of seperating their personal experiences from their objective viewpoints.


No, that is not true. My opinion will be weighed with your opinion when others read these posts. The two will serve to help others constrain their own thoughts and feelings and provide an objectivity that our posts alone could not.




posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Likely true, but I am referring to the logical valuation; there is such a thing as valid and an invalid opinion in a rational, logical argument.

But that is merely a semantics argument. What I was saying is that I value your opinion less because you have been directly affected by it and I would expect a negative bias response, so from my own experience and observation of the thread, this is the case.

That being said, I think some people are being a little too harsh on you. Regardless whether I agree or not, it is not right to antagonize you, you've been more fair than some others in the thread, and have entertained and responded to posts which you didn't necessarily have to acknowledge.

For that, You have some of my respect.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I think I will post on this thread something I've already spoken about in other places.

There are some teenagers and preteens who have been exposed to persuasive perverts, who have twisted them about. They've tried to convince those teens and preteens that THEY think that teenagers and preteens are attractive and exciting therefore those teenagers and preteens are hebophiles (they like using this term - less frightening).

Of course, this isn't so. But some of them come to believe it. Really, it just means the children are normal because their interests are in their age range, and mature along with them. However, these kids don't know that yet.


Just be aware that some of the people who may be posting in these threads in support may be children who have run into persuasive pedophiles or other perverts. And being children they do have a harder time against aggressive logic about topics they don't know or feel secure in - such as sexuality.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
reply to post by A Fortiori
 


Likely true, but I am referring to the logical valuation; there is such a thing as valid and an invalid opinion in a rational, logical argument.


Yes, but it is also a fallacy to state that my experience and its leanings upon my opinion makes my argument invalid. Truth stands independent. Whether or not you believe me, however, is a different story.



But that is merely a semantics argument. What I was saying is that I value your opinion less because you have been directly affected by it and I would expect a negative bias response, so from my own experience and observation of the thread, this is the case.


Why should you value mine or anyone else's opinion at all? I certainly do not value the opinion of strangers, especially the opinions of someone who sees only an 8000 maximum character opinion and believe from that they understand the entirety of who you are and how you think. That is absurd.

It is absurd that anyone on this board feels that I've made an assumption about them, either. I may disagree strongly with their posts, but it doesn't mean that I believe I could have any understanding of them based on a single thread.


That being said, I think some people are being a little too harsh on you.


Thank you.

If I was not willing to accept the derision that comes with having an opinion I would not have joined ATS. People need to accept the possible outcomes to their speech and actions. If I were swayed by their anger at me then my opinion is not firm and perhaps I ought not waste the time it takes to type it out.


For that, You have some of my respect.


Thank you.



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Originally posted by John Matrix

Originally posted by A Fortiori
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.


You are dehumanizing a man who has a family, friends, and has been a law abiding citizen for over thirty years.


I have friends from my hometown (anyone familiar with Mt Elliot, Doremus, and Brockton area of the Motor City??) who have gone to jail for crimes they did, in fact, commit. I have visited them in jail. They are still my friends because they have been good to me. One or two made a prison conversion and really seem changed men. They still have to serve their sentence because that is the law. Equal justice means equal application. There are laws here that he broke. These are not "secret" laws. They didn't bait and switch him with propriety American style.

Breaking the law means you pay the consequences, or else let's let everyone out of prison who has family and friends and a skillset we find valuable.

BTW, "law abiding"? He has had a string of Lolitas over the years, meaning if he was back in the US he would be in the same spot over and over. Fifteen, fourteen, etc is against the law. Natassia Kinski was jailbait.


He and his victim were caught up in the Hollywood lifestyle over 30 years ago. She went to Jack Nicholsons house to MODEL for crying out loud.


Oh, so let me get this straight and please correct me if I am wrong... is "going to Jack Nicholsons house" a euphemism for "sex me up, please?"


We know he was conviced.....but that conviction came by way of a plea deal which the judge was in on.....get it?


Please, look up "plea bargains". First, and a lawyer can correct me on this (I asked a friend who is a lawyer for the FBI so...) a plea deal is comprised of these things:

1) the "charge" (that was underage sex with a minor versus the six counts of felony rape) and agreement to the charge, and 2) a "recommendation" for sentencing (time at a mental facility for evaluation as "time served").

A judge may rescind the recommended sentencing if/when the individual proves that he has violated the spirit or terms of the agreement, OR he may keep the "charge" and throw out the recommendation for sentencing and give the individual the maximum for the charge.

Part 1 was not rescinded upon until he "fled". Now, he may (or may not) be charged with all counts. Part 2 was not reneged upon. Polanski received the recommended sentencing and asked for time to film a movie. During this time he had "terms" of behavior that he did not adhere to. When photographic evidence was presented to the judge of Polanski consuming alcohol and being in the company of young women, the judge gave him the maximum for the "charge" (underage sex with a minor, not sodomy, rape, etc).

How is this a reneging on the part of the judge? Polanski had terms of behavior as other convicted individuals do and did not adhere to them. Therefore, his sentence reverted.

EDIT: And how many black men do you think in the same set of circumstances would have been given time off prior to their sentence fulfillment to go overseas?


The guilty plea was ill-gotten


Ill gotten? Explain how it was "ill gotten"? They had forensic evidence (read the file) that she was forced upon, they had victim testimony, and his lack of denial that there was sex (meaning even before the deal he confessed to at least sex). He would have at the very least gotten the charge he got even without the plea deal.


and the judge did not honor his word to Polanski.


Polanski violated his release therefore it is not incumbent upon the judge to keep to the minimum sentencing.


YOU are demonizing another human being to JUSTIFY YOUR hatred.


What hatred? Whom do I hate?


I think your hatred is misplaced.


Wanting criminals to serve their time is not hatred. I have friends in jail that are serving their time as they ought to. It is a slap in the face to poor people when rich people have an altogether different system of justice.


Your stand against rape is not the issue. I agree with your stand on that issue.

But it's your hateful mean-spirited stand against Polanski that I take issue with.

It makes you look no better then a rapist.


Hateful. Mean-spirited. No better than a rapist.

Okay. I can live with that being your opinion of me.







[edit on 2-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 2-10-2009 by A Fortiori]

[edit on 2-10-2009 by A Fortiori]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by A Fortiori

Okay. I can live with that being your opinion of me.


The sort of person that if they liked me, I just wouldn't feel good about it.

[edit on 2009/10/2 by Aeons]



posted on Oct, 2 2009 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 


I believe if someone does not understand why a) sex with a minor is criminally wrong, b) raping a minor is criminally wrong and obscene, and c) that equal justice must be applied, then truly we have nothing in common and wouldn't be friends anyway.

If the only real "wrong" in this world is saying that something is wrong then I would rather be ostracized and told that I am wrong.

Again, I can live with that.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   

Your stand against rape is not the issue. I agree with your stand on that issue.

But it's your hateful mean-spirited stand against Polanski that I take issue with.

It makes you look no better then a rapist.


What is the difference? 5 years ago I heard about this guy and how he escaped to Europe, I remember biting my lip saying "no justice in this world". This is a great day, I never thought he'd be arrested. Luring a child to a fake photo shoot and boozin' her up(drugs too) is despicable and is definitely RAPE RAPE. Even if she had not said no it is still statutory. The fact there are people defending him is disgusting, if he were some average joe he would be crucified and slandered in every newspaper.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 04:44 AM
link   
Not everyone is defending Polanski. Many are looking at the facts of the case and can see that the Official Version does NOT add up. So many people are letting their emotions override the consideration of facts in this case.

Is it not possible that while Polanski IS guilty of rape, perhaps he was unaware of the victims real age? Does not excuse his actions and he deserves to be punished for the crimes that he committed. The problem is people are focussing on the assumption that he knew full well that she was under age. This forces a biased view over Polaski because you feel more repulsion than you would if the victim were an adult (still repulsion, but not as intense as if it were a child).

I do not believe that Whoopi was saying his actions were acceptable. She was probably more upset that he was being called a paedophile and it was being portrayed that he had a desire to rape little girls. Nevertheless, I will concede that what she said was insensitive and would bet she regrets using the words that she did.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Since when does it matter "who" committed the crime? Any civilized country shouldn't....no...CAN'T...care what race, nationality, economic level, etc. a "person" (and I use that term lightly in this case) is. The law is supposed to be blind to such things.

And NO...I don't give a crap if the victim just wants this to go away. As sorry as I feel for her past, and present situation...this is one law (one of many) that can not be permitted to persist. CHILD RAPE...CHILD ABUSE...are these things NO ONE should allow to exist in this world!

But here we have the "famous" and the "idiots" crying that it isn't "rape-rape". Ok Whoopie...what is "rape-rape"? While you are at it, what is "racism-racism" or "murder-murder"? And who is excluded from the laws we all follow in this country?

America needs to realize the reason for laws...especially those with harsh punishments. It is as much about "doing your time" as it is a deterrent against future offences. These are crimes against innocence, crimes against the fabric of our society and...our babies. What are they trying to say to our children?

"Sorry dear...I know some man took advantage of you just one year into your teen years by giving you illegal substances and then sticking his penis in various areas of your body...but...he IS a good film maker and therefore...your out of luck and don't deserve justice. Nor do your friends, peers, etc. You see...YOU don't matter because YOU are not as important as this great man. For he is above the law, he is above you...again. So, just shut up and take it up whatever hole he or any of his kind chooses to violate. And for all the other famous people out there...you are free to do the same. God knows we wouldn't want to stifle your creative brilliance. THAT...would be a crime."

What I wouldn't give for access to that list of 100 actors names supporting child rape. THAT would be all over the internet if I found it!!! In fact...if anyone here can find me a legitimate, verifiable copy...I would be happy to devote a page on my 5 sites just to posting these names. I'm sure there are others that would reciprocate.

I digress...sorry for ranting. But...with all the evil, all the unjust and all the "me" attitudes in this world, aren't we just becoming the "evil country" that our enemies call us when we allow (or support) this kind of crime? I have two daughters and I for one...understand how fragile children are. We bombard them daily with images of what "they should" be, we stick them in schools with animals who would chew them up and spit them out, and then we blame the rest of the world for not raising them? We were all children once...never forget the impact of upbringing and how that shapes all our lives.

[edit on 10/3/2009 by WeAreAWAKE]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
Is it not possible that while Polanski IS guilty of rape, perhaps he was unaware of the victims real age?


Ok...ummm....lets see...how can I say this nicely and clearly? IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT, ANY QUESTION...EVEN FOR A SECOND...KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS!!!

Any argument of "I didn't know how young she was" is completely invalid and irreverent with the rare exception of those intentionally trying to "trap" others. But with that said...how the hell can't you tell if a girl is 13??? I can kinda understand 16, or 17...but 13? It doesn't take a genius to look past the makeup. Or...just a thought...ASK FOR ID! And if she doesn't have it, or chooses to walk away...BIG DEAL! Yet another problem in this world...think with your brain...not your d!@#.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Remember Sharon Tate who was murdered by one of Charles Manson's followers?

Most of us know that Polanski was married to Sharon Tate at the time she was murdered.

The psychological trauma to Roman Polanski would have been severe.

Sharon Tate has a sister (Debra Tate) who knows Polanski quite well.
Debra Tate is a "Victim's Advocate."

What does Debra Tate have to say about Polanski? :


He's a brilliant director.......He helps many other people get a foothold in the business.......He's quite a Humanitarian......He's a good guy....He's brilliant.........There was a deal made back in the 70's where Roman would undergo evaluation and spend four months in Jail.....He Did That......He was evaluated not to be a paedophile........It was determined that Roman did not forcibly have sex with this young woman......it was a consensual matter......I am a victims advocate and I know the difference.........I do believe that our legal system is extremely broken on multi levels ....I think that at the moment there are a lot of tax payer dollars being spent to pursue cases that do not need to be pursued....especially in the state of California...........speaking with the district attorney's office about this matter I agree that Roman could not necessarily be dealt with in a fair manner here in the United States.......it's been a devastating two weeks for me.


Watch the video at Source here:
Debra Tate Speaks Out on Polanski

So it appears Roman did spend time in jail and he did get evaluated. He lived up to his end of the plea deal. The evaluation resulted in a determination that he is not a pedophile.

Debra Tate tried to Convince Polanski to come to the US and clear his name back in 2005. She felt that there had been some political problems in the past and he might be dealt with more fairly in 2005...but after speaking to the DA's office she realized there was no way Polanski would be dealt with fairly.

After reading the majority of the highly subjective and emotional "lynch mob mentality" responses on this thread... I can see why lawyers get frustrated with clients and the general public. Too many of us are living on the subjective emotional level. We jump to judgement based on our personal basis, subjectivity, and prejudices that all play together to excite an emotional response in us. You don't give a rat's a$$ about the facts. It's all black and white with you.

I thought condemnation for this type of "black and white" ideological way of thinking was saved for putting down religious fanatics? Well look in the mirror!!

You dehumanize this man to justify all kinds of harsh treatments that you entertain in your minds eye. Hang him, string him up, sodomize him, let him rot in jail,......bla....bla...bla. How sick is that???

Sorry....you won't convince me to follow in your footsteps. I'll weigh the facts first and won't let my cranium be preempted by an emotional response. I know things are not always what they appear to be.

AND stop with the assumptions. I don't advocate child sex...I don't say what he did was right....I don't defend the acts he did.....OK?? So don't jump to conclusions and start with your demonizing on me...OK??



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   
I'm still researching this foolish news event in the interest of educating those who will listen:

Samantha Geimer, now 45, Demands Charges be Dropped

I have some commentary concerning the actions of this prosecutor mentioned in the article that I will hold back. I want to see what ATS'rs can glean from this article first.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
If Polanski was an obese balding looking geek with glasses would he still be treated the same? Or would we all be talking about a sick pervert?


Excellent point. I would add: if the victim was anything other than a pretty young girl would this even be news?

The disappointing implication of that is that we as a society clearly think rape is less deserved by some than others.

-rrr



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The girl was 13 years old. We won't know and don't know how emotionally developed she was at that age as we all move along at different speeds. The one thing we know is that she said (according to the transcripts) that she was afraid of him while he was carrying out this act. How this guy can be defended by anyone is beyond me.

[edit on 3/10/09 by Yossarian]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by John Matrix
 


as I said previously, she does not want the attention, nor does she want to relive this moment one more time. Thus, she prefers they release him so as to avoid having to deal with the trauma and the media spotlight.

on a side note, regarding the monetary compensation Polanski "gave" her, it seems the actual payments might not have been made.

www.cnn.com...



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Reagardless of your FEELINGS about what Polanski did, there are FACTS to consider.

1. They didn't diligently pursue him for 30 years.(ya, they made a half a$$ed effort...big deal).

2. A judge is already on record for having stated there was substantial misconduct in the case.

3. Even if the extradition process works out for the prosecution, Polanski could withdraw his guilty plea, and the victim, Samantha Geimer who is now 45 years old, cannot be forced to testify. Without her, they have no case.

At the end of the day, a pile of taxpayer dollars get spent on prosecutors flying to Europe, enjoying surf'n turf in the best Hotels, enjoying the sights around Switzerland, etc. while benefiting from career building and their new found fame in the public eye.

Makes a lot of sense to me.


Don't vent your anger on Polanski.

Vent your anger on the Justice System.
After all, the "Justice System" is "Just a System" and not even a good one.



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WeAreAWAKE

Ok...ummm....lets see...how can I say this nicely and clearly? IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBT, ANY QUESTION...EVEN FOR A SECOND...KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS!!!

Any argument of "I didn't know how young she was" is completely invalid and irreverent with the rare exception of those intentionally trying to "trap" others. But with that said...how the hell can't you tell if a girl is 13??? I can kinda understand 16, or 17...but 13? It doesn't take a genius to look past the makeup. Or...just a thought...ASK FOR ID! And if she doesn't have it, or chooses to walk away...BIG DEAL! Yet another problem in this world...think with your brain...not your d!@#.


Wow, you have never seen a young teenager who looks like a young adult? I was at school with people who could get into nightclubs at 14/15....Yeah it's rare, but don't make out like it's impossible. Some male teens grow decent facial hair by age 15...some girls have round hips and large breasts and are FULLY developed by age 16. It was scary seeing some girls develop into young women over the school holidays.

Obviously Mr. Polanski was not thinking with his brain because he did not consider what impact his actions would have on another human being...(something most people who do bad stuff to others don't think about BEFORE they do it).

Anyway, I've had enough with this thread. Believe what you want to believe and assume what you want to assume. While you dream about Polanski hanging from a large tree with a noose around his neck, I'll be dreaming of a world where responsibility and prevention are considered more important than hate and vengeance. Retired.

[edit on 3/10/2009 by Dark Ghost]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
reply to post by John Matrix
 


as I said previously, she does not want the attention, nor does she want to relive this moment one more time. Thus, she prefers they release him so as to avoid having to deal with the trauma and the media spotlight.

on a side note, regarding the monetary compensation Polanski "gave" her, it seems the actual payments might not have been made.

www.cnn.com...


Good point. Apparently with interest he owes about 650,000.00 to her.
I'm trying to find out if anyone ever interviewed him about payment to her.

I read somewhere that he had paid her and her mother restitution, but never really thought to link to the source.

If he didn't pay them anything, then it definitely doesn't help his public perception of him.

[edit on 3/10/09 by John Matrix]



posted on Oct, 3 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by John Matrix


Don't vent your anger on Polanski.

Vent your anger on the Justice System.
After all, the "Justice System" is "Just a System" and not even a good one.




Naw I don't think so. Out here in the real world, we believe in punishing the criminal when a crime is committed instead of blaming it on a "system". I have heard the "system" complaint before when gang-bangers need to excuse their behavior, but I have never heard the "system" excuse used to excuse crimes of the rich elites before.

I think venting my anger at CHILD RAPISTS is entirely justified. It says a whole lot about people when they excuse a man of a heinous crime because of his money or job or celebrity status.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join