How that made you think of either is beyond me but then I’m still wondering how you learned to type. (I’ll wager there were Fig Newtons and beatings involved in some alternation.)
Last time I checked poison dart frogs are South American, not southern. I’d explain the difference but you’re stupid. Using God as an expletive has been recorded for at least 5,000 years. Not sure when using God in odd and vernacular positions began but it’s at least thousands of years old. Interesting trivia: the Plantaganets each claimed their own body part of the Almighty: “God’s teeth!” “God’s nipples!” “God’s nose!”
So it’s a rant, yes. It’s not specifically southern and I don’t really take offense at your slights to this region as you’re not a person of consequence, so grab some more Newtons and call victory.
But you’re not talking about the same thing YWTF is. She was alluding to your assertions regarding harm he hasn’t done to OTHER people. That’s not relevant to the question of whether he’s “innocent until proven guilty.”
So they’re not pretty much interchangeable. She’s right: What he has not done to others (his good or bad behavior vis a vis them) is not relevant to what he did or didn’t do to this victim (his innocence or guilt vis a vis the crime of raping her)
But this is only a stale case because of the actions of the guilty party.
Sampiro, I apologize if I’ve asked a question you feel you’ve answered too often. However I am doing my best to ask you these questions directly, politely, and respectfully. I would appreciate it if you showed me the same courtesy and either answer the question or direct me to something I may have missed amongst all the hurled invectives and insinuations.
I’ll call victory because you’ve been reduced to calling me stupid repeatedly and a person of no consequence. I don’t hit a guy when he’s down. But if you think I’m the only one who is sick of your retreat to down-home when you get insulting, who takes it as exactly that, and who doesn’t find it at all charming, then I suggest you ask around. Your assertion that this isn’t what you’re intentionally doing – it’s South American! It’s medieval! – insults not my intelligence (because I’m stupid) but your own.
I’m not talking legalese (which is what “innocent” is in the court of law…using this definition to assert that Roman has been harmless in the last 30 years is beyond moronic, and so I gotta wonder why you chose to make this particular chess move).
Your point is…what? That Roman is innocent like OJ is innocent? Okay, that’s real good.
OJ was at least found to be innocent by a jury of his peers. Like it or not, Polanski doesn’t have that and likely would not have had that even had he not pled guilty.
He hasn’t been accused of further crmies…therefore he is assumed innocent. Therefore it can be said that he shouldn’t be punished for the one heinous crime he did because “he never did it again” (that we know about).
This is logical to you?
Society is best served when people think that justice is applied equally to everyone.
As for his “it was 30 years ago”, it’s a little bit like the guy who wants leniency for killing his parents because he’s an orphan.
I hope they put him in jail for 10 years or so and he dies in prison. It’s what he deserves. Raping a 13 year old? After druggin her? And we should just forget it cause it’s just like “too traumatic” for the victim if it’s even mentioned again. OK.
I’m not even sure what you’re talking about. You said (or somebody said) that for all we know he has raped other girls. I said that without proof or even accusation such speculation is inadmissible in a court of law and irrelevant; there’s no more reason to believe he’s raped other girls than there is to believe I’m an axe murderer.
As for his guilt of the rape, I have NEVER ONE TIME DENIED HE IS GUILTY. I have repeatedly called him a rapist, I have repeatedly referred to Samantha Gailey as his victim, another implication of guilt. I firmly believe he is guilty of the crime.
I have said that there’s no evidence he’s committed other rapes. This doesn’t mean that I think he’s a swell character; I think he’s a very fucked up individual who should have been imprisoned 30 years ago (which I’ve said… what’s that word? Repeatedly.)
But this not being 30 years ago and as I care about Ms. Gailey-Gaimer’s feelings more than an auto da fa for an abstract notion of “justice”, I oppose his extradition. It’s clear nobody’s mind is going to be changed in this thread.
I have hurled neither invectives nor insinuations at you. It could be argued I hurled invective at snarky_kong for saying I ignored your question when I had already answered it repeatedly; this was not at you. Insinuation I’m not guilty of at all where you’re concerned, even second hand, so I do not see how an apology is in order.
(I’m the one who’s been called a friend of child rape, jeezus… if anybody should be demanding an apology…oh wait, I did, and it was received and accepted and a sincere one given in exchange… but from others I mean.)
I am the least down home person you’ll ever meet in your life. When other kids my age were going deer hunting I was arranging Barbie dolls and action figures into new arrangements of MY FAIR LADY scenes, and I grew up in the middle of a fucking deer preserve in a house filled brimming with rifles. I’ve been asked “where did you grow up?” by people who grew up with me, and still don’t believe me when I tell them. You just flat out don’t know what you’re talking about and have too much hatred against southerners in general.
As for your arguments: I understand why you feel the way you do. It is a reasonable position. Will you at least concede that I feel the way I do (that the victim should have say) for reasonable considerations? (I’m not asking if you agree with them, I know you don’t, but I am genuinely curious as to whether you understand why I side with the victim in the matter.)
I asked for no apology and apologized myself for asking a question that had apparently already been answered, but I find that simply ignoring an acknowledged request because you feel it had been answered is at least a little rude.
The invective remark was explaining why I may have missed the answer to my question that you had posted earlier. My eyes tend to glaze over after two pages of insults. I’m a bit of a pit lightweight.
If it helps, I’ll explain. I’m asking you these questions because I honestly cannot fathom your position. To me this is a fairly open and shut problem. You feel the same way, but on the other side. I’d simply like to know more of how you reached your conclusion. If you’re willing to explain, I’d certainly enjoy it. If not, I’ll simply wander off towards other pursuits no harm no foul.
You don’t know this. This is an assertion based on an unreasonable assumption, that being that the rape he committed was an isolated, “oops, my bad never again” type of deal. There’s no rational reason to give him the benefit of the doubt like this, just as its dumb to assume that some miscellanious sex offender who busted out of jail must have conducted himself like a boy scout if he hasn’t been caught doing something wrong.
To say something like “We have no evidence that Polanski has been a danger to others during his fugitive state,” is one thing. It’s another thing altogether to declare that he hasn’t been a danger, when you can’t possibly know this. A man as rich as Polanski could get away with a lot, especially when it comes to sex with underaged girls.
It seems Sampiro thinks the victim’s interests are best served by acceding to her wishes on the matter and holds that out as the paramount good. Especially considering the potential expense it may incur for a very old crime.
Meanwhile others appear to argue that society’s interests trump the victim’s in this instance and it is best for society to pursue this case, regardless of any potential expense, and to the point where the victim’s wishes must unfortunately be put aside.
I don’t see anything particularly offensive about either of the two above points of view. Why everybody is getting worked up about this is beyond me.
-choke- Woody Allen stands up for Roman Polanski ?
-choke-
Let’s seeeeeee. A man who fell in love with, and fucked, his adopted daughter is outraged that another man is being held accountable for drugging and raping a 13 year old child.
Boy howdy, ain’t that a surprise.
:dubious:
Ironic, that in rural Georgia Registered Sex Offenders are living in the woods- including teenage boys who at 17 made the “mistake” of falling in love with 15 year olds and sleeping with them. Them? They’re Sex Offenders. Roman? He’s an Artiste.
We all see the distinction, of course.
Cartooniverse, who figures that a debt owed is a debt that should be paid. Just because you’re popular doesn’t mean you get to fuck children and walk.
Apparently what happens at Jack Nicholson’s house doesnt stay at Jack Nicholson’s house !
As for the Polanski fans…can I drug you, shove something unwanted up your ass, live the life famous millionaire for decades, and then just serve 30 days of community service?
I didn’t say you actually were down-home. I said you retreat to that more useless ‘n’ tits on a boar-hog! style of good ol’ boy Southern when you choose to be insulting, as if your colloquialisms make your insults more amusing. They don’t. Again, if you think this is just my opinion, ask around.
You keep saying I hate Southerners, but you’re just full of shit on that score. You got some cites for my Southern hatred, trot them out. This isn’t about Southerners or the South; it’s about you and your obnoxious faux Southern insults.
Gee, I might have, before you called me stupid and a racist but now – not so much.
What many seem to be missing in this thread is that the trial has already occurred. Polanski pled guilty. If and when he is ever returned to the court, it will be for the sentencing phase.