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.

 

Hollyweird's support of the child rapist: Roman Polanski.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
I love the excuse of "great contribution" means that a particular person is ALLOWED to do bad things.

Frankly, if Polanski had never lived, nothing he did was all that important. The retarded idea that a ridiculous troll of a pedophile is "allowed" to do as he pleases because his "art" gives him immunity is disgusting.

I expect that all the people who believe this are lining up for the favour of letting this man or other "great" "artists" stick their dicks into your drugged up children. They DESERVE it.


Thats kind of disturbing...I would hate to peek into your mind.

Anyhow, a paedophile is someone whom is strictly attracted to pre-pubescent children. Polanski demonstrates an attraction towards post pubescent..which is octenophiloa...or something to that effect (will look up the proper term).

Just pointing out the difference. a pedo is actually a unnatural trait which is demonstrating mental illness. but attraction to teens is biologically normal..of course this is where the rule of law must kick in for decisionmaking. Sure, that 17 year old may look great and be highly alluring, but due to legalities, should be dismissed until the 18th birthday. Its pretty clear cut.

I have a problem with anyone drugging up any woman for sex though..even if it is legal. This compromises the person's ability to consent..and unless there is permission beforehand, well...it turns into a very gray area..especially if there are alot of drugs and sedatives involved. If it goes past a certain point, there can be an argument for rape




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
From this I can gather that a plea bargain was offered. This is not an admission of guilt. In many, many cases attorneys will advise that plaintiffs take plea bargains, regardless of the plaintiffs position, as a means of finding the most painless and expedient resolution to a case.


I understand that, and I know that it's a little 'naughty' of me to be so judgemental even so he has never been through due process.

Having said that, who would admit to any crime like this, plea bargain or not ?

As far as I'm aware, Polanski pleaded guilty to these charges. I think that the source you link to, where it says he pleaded not guilty, was of one particular hearing.

I believe that he was actually convicted of statutory rape in his absence.


Incidentally, on a minor point, I earlier erroneously said that Polanski fled to Switzerland, when he actually fled to France.



Regardless of his guilt or not, the other aspect of this thread is about the unquavering support of him from some of the 'leading lights' in Hollyweird.

As far as I know, none of these 'stars' are questioning the the validity of the charges, and are sticking up for him, fully aware of the crime that he has committed.


I'm not one for believing in conspiracy theories out of hand, but there is something terribly rotten in the depths of Hollyweird...


edit on 17-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by CerBeRus666
Another case of misinformation, or worst, lack of information.
First, there was no rape involved, it was consensual sex, and Roman didn't even know her age. But even if he did, since when is a 15 year-old a child?


She was 13 years old, not 15.

A 13-year-old is a girl, not a woman.

Any grown man who thinks it's acceptable to have sex with a child is sick in the head.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Oh, c'mon, give ol' Roman a break.

As Whoopie Goldberg said, "it wasn't rape-rape".




posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
I love the excuse of "great contribution" means that a particular person is ALLOWED to do bad things.

Frankly, if Polanski had never lived, nothing he did was all that important. The retarded idea that a ridiculous troll of a pedophile is "allowed" to do as he pleases because his "art" gives him immunity is disgusting.

I expect that all the people who believe this are lining up for the favour of letting this man or other "great" "artists" stick their dicks into your drugged up children. They DESERVE it.


This is the thing that I find so nauseating and unjust.

His job or his art have nothing to do with the crime that he has committed. So when you get the likes of Whoopi Goldberg and Harrison Ford defending this pervert because he's a Hollyweird director, then you really have to question the morality of these people sticking up for him.

If one of my workmates was convicted of a similar crime, then there is absolutely no way that I'd stick up for him.

There's something rotten in Hollyweird...


edit on 17-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Anyhow, a paedophile is someone whom is strictly attracted to pre-pubescent children. Polanski demonstrates an attraction towards post pubescent..which is octenophiloa...or something to that effect (will look up the proper term).


A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children.

The definition of ''child'' will obviously vary between countries and cultures.

By just about all Western standards, a 13-year-old girl is not a valid target for a grown man's attraction.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
He's Hollywood. I would be lying if I said that kids and teens are not used as sex objects in entertainment. Shows how these people really care for anyone except for other scum.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Anyhow, a paedophile is someone whom is strictly attracted to pre-pubescent children. Polanski demonstrates an attraction towards post pubescent..which is octenophiloa...or something to that effect (will look up the proper term).


A paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children.

The definition of ''child'' will obviously vary between countries and cultures.

By just about all Western standards, a 13-year-old girl is not a valid target for a grown man's attraction.





As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia (or paedophilia) is typically defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 and older) characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary).


Just going grammar nazi. it is not a "child" as a child can be 17 years and 11 months, it is actually as the word breaks down into..pedo..such as pediatrics, etc...dealing with actual children children.
puberty hits around the 11-14 mark (give or take) in humans, therefore, after that, it is considered something different.

Just defending words here, not actions..I think its important to bring approprate context back into words else run the risk of diluting the language all together
such as how some are calling julian assange a terrorist...if this is acceptable, then the next time they give a terror alert, some may simply think someone is about to leak a embarassing document.

Like how the term "hero" has been all but stripped of meaning. "My dad was a hero" could mean anything from he ran into a burning building to save a cat, to he was a teacher whom took a pay reduction..its hollow and context free.

one of my pet peeves. the term pedophile is passed around on things its not, the term sex offender now means charges that aren't even related to victims, the term terrorist is now including simple opponents in a offical war, the term socialism or nazi means a 4% difference in tax rate, etc...it really hits that part of the brain that makes my eyebrow twitch in general frustration.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


No, I accept your point that ''paedophile'' means something different from a medical or psychological perspective.

After all, there's a huge difference between someone being attracted to a pre-pubescent child and a post-pubescent child.

However, most dictionary definitions of ''paedophile'' will define it as a sexual attraction towards children in general.
The term itself is derived from the Greek word for ''child''.


Language evolves, and I think this is just another example of a word evolving into something broader than its original meaning.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
Language evolves, and I think this is just another example of a word evolving into something broader than its original meaning.


yes, and as a traditionalist, I try to stand against the devolution of language for as long as possible.

eventually a child will be considered anyone under 21 over in the west, then 25, then will start broadening out to "child minds", aka, a 40 year old drunk off her butt will get some newfangled clause that puts her at a childset mind, which means drunk people will be considered children and any sex with them = molestation, etc...

Eventually you got to simply say Stop!

anyhow, I am done with this thread...felt the need to correct another instance of language destruction..I really do try to avoid pop culture nancy grace threads though...but sometimes the low hanging fruit gets me. heh...enjoy
edit on 17-12-2010 by SaturnFX because: fixed a bit...ya, I know...total hypocrite



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
yes, and as a traditionalist, I try to stand against the devolution of language for as long as possible.

eventually a child will be considered anyone under 21 over in the west, then 25, then will start broadening out to "child minds", aka, a 40 year old drunk off her butt will get some newfangled clause that puts her at a childset mind, which means drunk people will be considered children and any sex with them = molestation, etc...

Eventually you got to simply say Stop!



LOL.

I'm also a bit of a stick-in-the-mud when it comes to linguistics.

We just have to accept that language evolves, and that words, and their meanings, will change over time.


What was that word you mentioned earlier ? octenophilia ?

Don't you think that it would be a bit precious for people to drop that word into discussions of this nature, rather than using the word ''paedophile'' ?



Originally posted by SaturnFX
I really do try to avoid pop culture nancy grace threads though...but sometimes the low hanging fruit gets me. heh...enjoy


Are you having a pop at this thread ?


Don't you think that the 'kid-glove' treatment of Polanski, and the unequivocal support of him from Hollweird's 'finest', is worthy of debate on ATS ?


edit on 17-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
We just have to accept that language evolves, and that words, and their meanings, will change over time.

No I don't! lalalalalala..I cant hear you!


What was that word you mentioned earlier ? octenophilia ?


Don't you think that it would be a bit precious for people to drop that word into discussions of this nature, rather than using the word ''paedophile'' ?

Ya. murdered that word beyond sense.
the word I was grasping at is ephebophilia...aka, the attraction to jail bait.
post pubescent, the developed but still has that mid/late teen skin of flawlessness..
I would venture to say this is what pretty much everyone is overall whom is considered "normal".
Traits include...wondering when Miley Cyrus turns 18...you know..because you care about how she may vote...



Are you having a pop at this thread ?


Not intentionally, I just tend to see this more as celeb gossip verses something that would effect me as a person.
The question is, does hollywood stardom get preferential treatment? the answer of course is...durrr. heh

As far as it being some new phenomona...nope, the people with fame and money always have an easier time in society...fair or not is beside the point, it simply is how it is and nothing will ever change that.

So, ultimately these types of threads are simply shaking fists at people luckier than ourselves, then attacking mindsets...none of which actually produces anything of value. aka, celeb gossip...and if there is nothing much to learn from a thread on ATS, I generally try to avoid it...unless its funny, then I stick around for the laughs.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:35 PM
link   
Saturn seems to have issues with boundaries and the need to sex up 13 year olds by continually moving the goal posts.

As to Cyrus - her father thinks that stripper pole birthday parties are normal for 11 year olds. Sexing up his daughters appears to be an obsession for him.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Ya. murdered that word beyond sense.
the word I was grasping at is ephebophilia...aka, the attraction to jail bait.
post pubescent, the developed but still has that mid/late teen skin of flawlessness..
I would venture to say this is what pretty much everyone is overall whom is considered "normal".
Traits include...wondering when Miley Cyrus turns 18...you know..because you care about how she may vote...


Although it's a bit of a taboo, I'll acknowledge that some 15-year-old girls are sexually attractive, yet some 'legal' 16 and 17-year-olds aren't ( the age of consent is 16 here in the UK ).


This reminds me of an interesting discussion that I had with a couple of friends, earlier this year.

In February, when the Winter Olympics were on, the skip of the GB curling team, Eve Muirhead, came to national prominence for more than just her curling skills !



She's 19, yet, to me, she only looks about 14 or 15.

The interesting thing is how many colleagues of mine were telling me exactly what they'd like to do to her ( sometimes, in gratuitously graphic detail ) !

The discussion that I had with my friends was related to the issue of how many men were openly declaring their sexual interest in the girl, despite her young appearance, just because she is officially ''legal''.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
Not intentionally, I just tend to see this more as celeb gossip verses something that would effect me as a person.
The question is, does hollywood stardom get preferential treatment? the answer of course is...durrr. heh


With respect, this thread is not about celebrity gossip at all. I deplore celebrity gossip as much as you appear to.

I am not pointing the finger at Polanski, purely because he's a famous film director.

I am not mentioning the unequivocal support for him by Hollyweird 'stars', purely because they are celebrities.


I think that it's a little unfair of you to suggest that this thread is tantamount to ''celeb gossip'', when the very fact that Polanski and his supporters are ''celebrities'' is a vital and pertinent component to the whole subject of this thread.


Should we just shrug our shoulders and accept that famous figures in Hollyweird get preferential treatment ?


Originally posted by SaturnFX
As far as it being some new phenomona...nope, the people with fame and money always have an easier time in society...fair or not is beside the point, it simply is how it is and nothing will ever change that.


Having an ''easier time'' is completely different than escaping justice.

This man needs to be punished for his crime, but these powerful Hollyweird connections appear to run deep.



Originally posted by SaturnFX
So, ultimately these types of threads are simply shaking fists at people luckier than ourselves, then attacking mindsets...none of which actually produces anything of value. aka, celeb gossip...and if there is nothing much to learn from a thread on ATS, I generally try to avoid it...unless its funny, then I stick around for the laughs.


I can guarantee you that Roman Polanski isn't ''luckier than myself''. Au contraire, I would say.

This thread isn't even about metaphorical fist-shaking.

My thread was intended to discuss the fact that Roman Polanski has escaped justice, and the corrupt nature of Hollyweird 'stars' who mindlessly support him, despite the fact that if it had been a 40-year-old truck driver from Indiana who had committed this crime, then nobody would have given a #, yet alone defended them.

If you don't like the subject of my thread, then don't contribute towards it.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Saturn seems to have issues with boundaries and the need to sex up 13 year olds by continually moving the goal posts.

Aeons seems to be hiding something with taking things totally out of context to insinuate things


The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


Mhmm...I don't want to know what you have done to make you so...passionate. I can imagine I guess...but hey...just get some help to stop it yourself, else the police will eventually catch on and stop it for you.


Anymore sewage you care to state?



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


That eve girl...meh, she is fairly average in regards to looks. might be the eye shadow or something...too much for such a light complexion (unless she was going for goth..but she wasn't).

There is a saying in lawyer circles.
A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge.

Ultimately, you get what you pay for in regards to law..and the reason some lawyers are soo damn expensive, is because they are very well connected and can spin courts into a endless cycle of nonsense..eventually the state starts considering if they can afford to spend a gazillion bucks and endless time trying to do a single prosecution.

Thats just the system...one thing hollywood types have, is money.



posted on Dec, 17 2010 @ 07:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
That eve girl...meh, she is fairly average in regards to looks. might be the eye shadow or something...too much for such a light complexion (unless she was going for goth..but she wasn't).


Really ?

I think that she's undoubtedly a pretty girl, but I don't find her ''sexy''. She looks a bit too ''girly'' for me, rather than ''womanly'', if you know what I mean.



Regardless of our personal opinions on her looks, she became a minor sex symbol earlier this year, and was approached by some wank-mags, to pose in a photo-shoot... Thankfully, she declined.

The point is, though, that she looks about 14 or 15. It's incredible how many men were open about their sexual attraction towards her, when they know that she's ''legal''.

I just wonder at the moral indignation and attitudes of these same people, and how they would react, if she were actually 14.


Originally posted by SaturnFX
There is a saying in lawyer circles.
A good lawyer knows the law, a great lawyer knows the judge.

Ultimately, you get what you pay for in regards to law..and the reason some lawyers are soo damn expensive, is because they are very well connected and can spin courts into a endless cycle of nonsense..eventually the state starts considering if they can afford to spend a gazillion bucks and endless time trying to do a single prosecution.

Thats just the system...one thing hollywood types have, is money.



I agree with some of your comments ( lawyers aren't exactly my favourite people ).

We know that Hollyweird glitterati can afford the best lawyers, but the lawyers aren't responsible for this complete travesty of justice.

He got arrested in Switzerland not too long ago, yet the extradition process was dropped.


This is why I think it's rather unfair of you to just brush this thread aside as merely ''celebrity gossip''. There is a much deeper slant to this topic, and there's no harm in bringing it up once more.


edit on 17-12-2010 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join