Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Liberte:
What the %$#! are you on about?
Find where I said you were off topic, or that "off topic" was the issue.
************
And GGW tries to palm this off as his "example"?
************
Originally posted by Liberte:
get off your high horse about other peoples' choice to stick with the explicit topic of discussion
.
***********
Ye gods. Since when does "Get off your high horse about OTHER PEOPLES' CHOICE to stick with the explicit topic..." equal "You are off topic" ? Don't answer, you're bound to get it wrong at your current hit rate. The correct answer is never, in any language.
***********
Originally posted by Liberte:
Find where I said anything about exonerating anybody.
You can't because, as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell, I said no such things.
No, you never said that directly.
***********
Goddamned right. And the following crock of shit is about as poor an excuse at self-justification for having made an insupportable accusation as one could ask for. You utterly missed the point. Let me try again: It is certainly inconsistent to claim moral superiority over other POSTERS HERE for choosing to admire (or pay for)Polanski's art when you yourself, beyond a shadow of a doubt, admire AND pay for works of art by people who have committed equally reprehensible acts. The problem is your GGW's-shit-doesn't-stink attitude toward other discussants, not your condemnation of Polanski.
***********
However, you claimed that it is inconsistent to own some records that may have been made by someone who may have raped somebody and to simultaneously condemn the work of Polanski who did molest a child. The implication is that since the ownership of the records implies that nothing is held against some people who may have done something Polanski definitely did, one can't hold anything against Polanski.
Originally posted by Liberte:
What I object to is your attempt to inflict upon everyone else your view of the proper response to Polanski's art.
I'm not entitled to state my opinion and argue for it?
Originally posted by Liberte:
I took considerable pains to point out that you are entitled both to make and to advocate that response.
Wait.....So I am entitled to state my opinion and argue for it?
Make up your mind.
**********
Ye gods (again). My position on your right to your own opinion was firmly established before you began this sophistry.
**********
Originally posted by Liberte:
Twisting someone's words to deflect attention from an insupportable moral absolutism is heinous. Accusing someone who disagrees with you of being a child molester himself is heinous.
It was an implication, not an accusation, "as any idiot with a passing knowledge of reading English prose could tell."
**********
Implying that somebody is guilty of something--especially in the service of an ignoble end like evading his point--is functionally equivalent to accusing him of it. Ad hominem is ad hominem is ad hominem, and it does not become one so intent on hogging the high moral ground to stoop to such tactics.
**********
Originally posted by Liberte:
According to your logic, none of us should ever forgive you for those crimes of Talibanistic mendaciousness and slander, right?
Uh huh.....
Please stick to your moral relativism if it makes you feel better. Just remember, it's a completely bankrupt philosophy, as it has the strange logical property of not being able to deny the truth of its own contradiction. [/b]
*********
Moral relativism is a completely irrelevant term in regard to my argument, which is simply that you do not have the right, which you have attempted to arrogate, to impugn others for choosing to consider a man's art and life separately. What's more to the point is the moral indefensibility of misrepresenting others' words and slandering them, and then having the brass balls to lecture them regarding their ethical shortsightedness.
***********
From your next post: If you knew your plumber was a fugitive child molester, would you choose to use him as your plumber?
I'm sure his art is great, but, like I said, I can't see how anyone would choose to put money in his pocket while he remains on the lam for child molestation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, some progress. The topic of the thread was, "Whose art as a director qualifies for a top 40 living practitioners list?" Personally, I'd put him on the list for some truly extraordinary movies in his oevre. That certainly does not mean I'm in favor of child rape, thank you very much. I believe the board consensus on that non-issue which you've attempted to club people with would be entirely one-sided.
I can also state with confidence that I wouldn't let the fellow anywhere near my plumbing.
As I've said now several times, you are free to argue against Polanski's belonging on that list FOR ANY REASON YOU LIKE. What is out of bounds in civilized discourse is condemning others' moral fitness for having the temerity to disagree with your criteria. Dump that holier-than-thou-ness, and we have no substantive argument.
