Why do we tolerate "talented" Pedophiles? (Pennsylvania, status, world)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Woody Allen's biological son with Mia Farrow, Ronan Farrow, said of his father Woody Allen: "He's my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father and be morally consistent...I lived with all these adopted children, so they are my family. To say Soon-Yi was not my sister is an insult to all adopted children."
Ronan Farrow is the product of a bitter, BITTER ex-wife who has been feeding him vitriolic lies for the past 18 years. The boy was four years old when his mother and father separated. I hardly think that he "formed" his own opinion about the matter based upon his own experience. I would say that he is the quintessential product of maternal brainwashing - an achievement of which I'm sure Mia is very proud. She is certainly better at it than she ever was at acting.
I just found out that Chely Wright is a homosexual--it has no bearing on the quality of her work (though I can't think of anything she's done offhand--
Polanski obviously did it but it doesn't even matter the main issue with him right now is that he purposely fled the legal system and that's what they want to bring him back for right?
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 06-05-2010 at 10:16 PM..
Reason: Deleted off-topic comment
First of all, I don't really care who directs when it comes to movies. I don't see the value that a director brings to it--it's all about the talent of the actors--the way I see it.
Anyway, that being said, Elton John is an admitted homosexual. I don't personally agree with that lifestyle choice--but it has no bearing on the quality of his work. I just found out that Chely Wright is a homosexual--it has no bearing on the quality of her work (though I can't think of anything she's done offhand--I just know that she's a country artist). But they're not asking me to be their bestest buddy either--they're just putting out their work, and hoping people will like it enough to pay for it.
Their personal life, their private life, has no bearing on their career.
Come on TK do you really believe that Polanski's conviction of raping a 13yr old had no bearing on his career? The fact that he has lived as a well known Famous fugitive has had no bearing on his career? Either positive or negative? How do you equate sexual lifestyle choice and being convicted of rape. Granted both are personal and private choices but that is were any kind of analogy should end.
Come on TK do you really believe that Polanski's conviction of raping a 13yr old had no bearing on his career? The fact that he has lived as a well known Famous fugitive has had no bearing on his career? Either positive or negative? How do you equate sexual lifestyle choice and being convicted of rape. Granted both are personal and private choices but that is were any kind of analogy should end.
Not to me--I couldn't even tell you what films he's directed without looking it up.
Not to me--I couldn't even tell you what films he's directed without looking it up.
Ok, your not a big Polanski fan I get that. However, how can the choice that he made to rape a 13yr old, be convicted of the crime and have to flee the country as a fugitive have no bearing on his career? Don't you think those circumstances would have a profound effect and bearing on anybodies personal and private career.
I can think of other celebrities that have been convicted of crimes--if not by the courts, then by public opinion--whose career has not suffered because of it.
I could understand the hostility toward Woody Allen more if his films promoted an unhealthy view of young children. (As far as I know, none of his work promotes child sexuality..please correct me if I'm wrong.) The guy has not done anything illegal, so let him do his job.
The outrage would be better directed toward the producers of advertisements, movies, music videos, etc. that openly sexualize prepubescent children, in my opinion.
As for Roman Polanski, the use of the word "rape" is emotionally loaded. Rape implies the use of force, i.e., an act that was done against the will of the person who was raped. Was his transgression (admittedly illegal) not consensual? Yes, I am aware that technically this is called statutory rape, which means that a particular sex act is defined as rape by law. However, that does not make it rape in any real sense. Suppose the law were changed to make it statutory rape to have sex with a 22-year-old and your wife is 22. That would make your having sex with her "rape", would it not? Even if the 13-year-old "victim" had been the agressor in initiating the act, and I'm not saying she was in this particular case, it would still be statutory rape. And don't tell me such a thing is impossible. If that's what you think, it just shows the limitations of your life experiences. Sure, I can agree that the adult has the responsibility to not give in in such cases, but it's a world apart from the emotional context of saying Polanski "raped" a 13-year-old girl.
As for Roman Polanski, the use of the word "rape" is emotionally loaded. Rape implies the use of force, i.e., an act that was done against the will of the person who was raped. Was his transgression (admittedly illegal) not consensual? Yes, I am aware that technically this is called statutory rape, which means that a particular sex act is defined as rape by law. However, that does not make it rape in any real sense. Suppose the law were changed to make it statutory rape to have sex with a 22-year-old and your wife is 22. That would make your having sex with her "rape", would it not? Even if the 13-year-old "victim" had been the agressor in initiating the act, and I'm not saying she was in this particular case, it would still be statutory rape. And don't tell me such a thing is impossible. If that's what you think, it just shows the limitations of your life experiences. Sure, I can agree that the adult has the responsibility to not give in in such cases, but it's a world apart from the emotional context of saying Polanski "raped" a 13-year-old girl.
You are absolutely right!!! I have no experience in having sex with underage girls or boys. What experiences does the above post's assertion draw upon? In my world drugging a little girl senseless and having unconsented sex with her is "rape" That is what the Grand Jury charged him with among other perverse illegal acts.
Polanski only pled guilty to "statutory rape". In my life experience of arresting over 1000 criminals every single one who pled guilty to lesser charges in the interest of justice were still guilty of all the charges dropped. Most of those criminals who pled to lesser charges as a condition of their plea promised to never commit another crime under penalty of conviction of all the original charges. 7 times out of 10 the same stupid criminal would be arrested again for another crime and his previous charges would be reinstated and they would be found guilty of all the charges of the first crime.
Using your logic Polanski is guilty of all these acts: "rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under fourteen, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor". At least the above is my experience in actually arresting criminals and obtaining a convictions.
The problem for Polanski is that he admitted he committed the crime of Statutory Rape. Then he fled. At that point all bets are off. The D.A. can again go after him for all the previous Grand Jury charges. That's why he is spending untold millions of dollars hiring the who's who of international defense attorneys to fight his case. "Walks like a duck, Talks like a duck, must be a duck"
Last edited by Bulldogdad; 06-23-2010 at 08:43 AM..
Please do not twist my words. The experience is of observing 13-year-old girls behaving agressively. I did not even imply anything about having "sex with underage girls or boys". The way you have twisted that around amounts to intellectual dishonesty. Of course it is very insulting also.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
