Originally posted by Liberte:
At no point in this dialogue (and I use that term loosely, since you seem incapable of actually comprehending what anyone else writes) have I or anyone else suggested absolving Polanski of responsibility for his behavior
You seem to have trouble remembering what you posted:
Originally posted by Liberte:
However, in view of Polanski's having already suffered more than anyone should have to bear, and the fact that there was at least an element of consent (to the extent one believes that possible for a minor--but then, we were letting Jerry Lee Lewis off the hook on that score, weren't we?) in the crime, and most of all that the victim appears to have been able to enjoy a more or less normal life afterwards and has forgiven the perp, I believe that a position of forgiveness and moving on would also bear one's respect.
Or will you now offer some tired semantic discourse on the distinction between "forgive and move on" and "absolve"?
Originally posted by Liberte:
You have attempted to sell a false dichotomy, and I'm not buying. You seem to think that holding someone responsible for his actions requires total, permanent, scorched-earth jihad against every aspect of his being, and that failure to follow your dogma is a mark of moral degeneracy. That, my friend, is simple selfish hatemongering wrapped in a veneer of sanctimony..
I'm saying that there is a fugitive child molestor living in France who makes his living by selling movies. I'm saying that if one attends his movies one is contributing to his economic welfare.
Would one willingly choose to contribute to the well-being of a fugitive child molestor? If so, why?
The only answers seem to be, "Maybe the 13-year old girl wanted it." "Why wasn't the girl's mother around?" "Leave him alone, he's a great filmmaker." and anything else that can minimize Polanski's responsibility.
Hitler made the trains run on time and revitalized the German economy. Let's praise him too.
Originally posted by Liberte:
I will not apologize for taking a moral position based on hating the sin, not the sinner. I spit on your characterization of considering the whole context as "moral relativism." I laugh at the foolish inconsistency of your arguments. Jerry Lee Lewis (alcoholic, drug-abusing, confessed pervert--nah, he couldn't have committed exactly the same acts on his 13-year old, could he?) is off the hook because he picked a state for his depredations whose bizarre laws permitted what was proscribed in Polanski's case??? (Or is the problem that ol' Roman neglected to choose a blood relative as his target?) The don't-ask-don't-tell rule absolves you from thinking about the pervs whose works litter your own music collection??? It's perfectly okay--nay, mandatory-- to trash the hundreds of non-child-molesting contributors to Polanski's movies to make a "statement" about not putting money in the sinner's pockets (even though in all probability not one thin dime will ever reach said sinner, who has already been paid whatever he was going to get)
Jerry Lee Lewis is sick. Please refer to my earlier post where I stated that. I hope Arkansas, or whatever back-ass state it was, has changed the laws. But last time I checked, he wasn't a fugitive, there were no charges of rape, no charges of drugging, no charges of sodomy.
As for my record collection, the fact that you continue to try to construct this flimsy house of cards based on speculation, supposition, and flawed logic to support your claim of moral equivalency between Polanski and all the artists in my record collection is ridiculous.
You say my music collection is tainted because of the actions of somebody represented in it. Can you give any names? Nope. Can you point to any incidents? Nope. You don't even bother to offer up some saucey snippet from Pamela des Barres or anything even remotely tangential to your assertion. Instead, based purely on conjecture, you just proclaim that somewhere, at some point in time, somebody may have committed some act, that may in some way bear some resemblance to a specifically identifiable man, convicted of a specifically identified crime which he has never denied, and that this is equivalent.
Further, you assert that this chimerical transgression stains all of my music. As though I have argued that Polanski's act means all movies and directors are guilty of his crimes.
Clearly, you are the expert at foolish inconsistency.
Originally posted by Liberte:
I will now use short words and sentences. Maybe you can finally wrap your tiny mind around them. </font>- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">Child molesting is bad.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">If Roman is caught, make him serve the time.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">You want to boycott his movies, go ahead.</font></li>
- <font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">Others disagree, you respect their choice.</font></li>
<font size="2" face="Arial, Veranda">
See if you can focus on those simple points, and stop pulling snarky bullshit out of your butt. [/b]
Readinz phun......
