"Free Polanski" = Liberals gone crazy

Now that it have been said to me more than once, I would really appreciate it if anyone could show me where I was defending Polanski at all. I would really appreciate a quote a link to the post. I would not mind my little friend there offering up some quotes to back up his little misconceptions and misrepresentations about what I said. I would like to say it is lies because otherwise it is just a complete lack of comprehension and I do not want to be that way. Just show me where I defended the guy or I can officially say that this lynch mob has had to resort to lying in order to make their erroneous argument.

Justice and vengenance. They want you to confuse the two.

We all know what the difference is, even if we cannot put it into words (which I can before you ask). They want to accuse you of vengenance.

Don't take the bait. Do not be confused.

A state can violate a person's human rights. So can a single individual. If a state had done this sort of heinous crime, you could identify it in a moment. This man violated another. He violated his contract of adulthood. He violated his contract of citizenship. He violated the human rights of another....and to make it worse he did it with a child.

Law is a contract we enter into with the state, and the state represents us because the state is based on the power of the individuals of the body politic. That's you. We could all run around and just kill other and beat on them for violations. Since we all know that this doesn't work well as a stable society, we contract with each other to give away our right to vengenance for a contract of justice with each other.

This man should have been taken out into the street and beaten into a bloody pulp.

But because we all know that doesn't work really well as an ongoing societal system, he wasn't.

Instead he escaped to live a life of luxury in defiance of justice.

This isn't vengenance. It is the triumph of justice.

Now if people did what this man actually deserved - that would be reclaiming the right to vengenance. But it isn't good for society as a wrong for a wrong. Therefore, society holds itself in check.

Make no mistake. Vengenance would not look like a ticket on a jet plane back with a team of lawyers and fancy suits.

reply to post by Aeons


So once more you avoid the probing questions that you feel it unsafe to answer for the sake of your...

"The man should be taken out in the streets and beaten to a bloody pulp"

If anything in an eye for eye form of vengence you are advocating the man should have been plied with champagne and qualudes and sodomized at a Oscar Award Winning famous movie star's home who would also be one of Hollywood's most eligible bachelors by an Oscar Winning director who was also one of Hollywood's most eligble bachelors oh and don't forget the jaccuzzi please.

Your agruments are as far off the questions being put to you as your solutions are based on the primitive concept of what you are advocating as a means to make yourself feel good as opposed to helping the victim feel good who has already stated time and time again it does not make her feel good when this comes back up in the public over and over again.

In reality you don't even care about the victimization of the victim because you won't even consider that what you are advocating leaves her to feel she is being victimized further.

Could you answer why you want to victimize the victim further to make yourself feel good.

Can you explain how that might be any different than the defendant victimizing the victim to make himself feel good.

Or are you too consumed by your own selfish need to indulge your base emotions to consider or contemplate such soul searching intellectual based arguments and questions?

[edit on 30/9/09 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Could you answer why you want to victimize the victim further to make yourself feel good.

I think I asked this once as well and never got that answer. I do not want any lame battered woman analogy either. Why do you guys feel it is ok to vicitimize the victim all over again, against her CONSENTING ADULT WISHES? What good will come of it?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Could you answer why you want to victimize the victim further to make yourself feel good.

I think I asked this once as well and never got that answer. I do not want any lame battered woman analogy either. Why do you guys feel it is ok to vicitimize the victim all over again, against her CONSENTING ADULT WISHES? What good will come of it?

He paid her. You cannot PAY your way out of justice.
That would be a tiered system of justice, with one for the rich and famous (who could get free reprsentation), and the rest of us.

I don't expect that you get that.

These are hard to get for the sociopath and those with less intelligence.

[edit on 2009/9/30 by Aeons]

reply to post by Lillydale


FIne, in order to stop your persistent U2Us, i admit you haven't openly defended the rapist himself, but in a roundabout way your arguments are aligned with those who ARE defending him. You certainly haven't been very clear in condemning him. You think that just because the victim is grown now, and doesn't want the publicity, that he should just walk free after FLEEING from his criminal sentencing. SHE ALREADY TESTIFIED, HE PLEAD GUILTY. SHE IS NO LONGER NEEDED IN THE PROSECUTION, AT ALL. She can easily request privacy and to stay out of the spotlight, the incident itself does NOT have to be relived, if she chooses it not to be, that part was out of the way back when he was CONVICTED. But given that she's already done a spot on Larry King, i doubt she wants to stay out of the spotlight that badly. If she feels he is INNOCENT, then she should recant her story. Otherwise, he needs to do the time for doing the crime.

Originally posted by Aeons
He paid her. You cannot PAY your way out of justice.
That would be a tiered system of justice, with one for the rich and famous (who could get free reprsentation), and the rest of us.

I don't expect that you get that.

These are hard to get for the sociopath and those with less intelligence.

[edit on 2009/9/30 by Aeons]

I get it just fine. You are dodging the question completely and trying to demonize me in the process of deflecting attention away from the fact that you are refusing to answer this very simple question. Call me names and insult my intelligence if that makes you feel better. Do it some more if you like. Can you at least answer the question you were asked though? If not for me, answer PT then.

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Hemisphere

 

The guy's lawyers took another stab at getting him off.

Which put his case right back in front of someone's eyes. His own actions put his case file right back up on top of the pile.

The egomaniac did it to himself.

Don't poke the wolf, and if you do and get bit.......

Didn't know that. Fair enough!

Originally posted by 27jd
reply to post by Lillydale

 

FIne, in order to stop your persistent U2Us, i admit you haven't openly defended the rapist himself,

Right, so you lied for a third time about what I was saying in a forum where people can just simply look and read it but who is counting.

but in a roundabout way your arguments are aligned with those who ARE defending him.

LOL. Really now? I would love to ask just how that is exactly but I am sure you do not really want to actually have to defend what you say instead of outright appologizing or retracting.

You certainly haven't been very clear in condemning him. You think that just because the victim is grown now, and doesn't want the publicity, that he should just walk free after FLEEING from his criminal sentencing.

Actually I stated rather succinctly that I was not defending him or what he did. I also said more than once that drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is deplorable. I guess reading was not your strong suit.

SHE ALREADY TESTIFIED, HE PLEAD GUILTY. SHE IS NO LONGER NEEDED IN THE PROSECUTION, AT ALL.

Are you paying attention? She is already being hounded by press and everyone in her life that did not know about it, does now. What planet are you on? If you really paid attention, she IS BEING FORCED TO SHOW UP because they said in order for him to get a dismissal, SHE HAS TO SHOW UP.

She can easily request privacy and to stay out of the spotlight, the incident itself does NOT have to be relived, if she chooses it not to be, that part was out of the way back when he was CONVICTED.

Little late for that don't you think? She can ask for privacy all she wants. Her children can ask to go back to a time before they knew all this too, but if frogs had wings...

But given that she's already done a spot on Larry King, i doubt she wants to stay out of the spotlight that badly. If she feels he is INNOCENT, then she should recant her story. Otherwise, he needs to do the time for doing the crime.

Did she say that she thinks he was innocent or did she say that enough has been done and any further action would simply victimize her even more? There is a difference.

p.s. do not lie about what I have said and I will not have to U2U you to tell you that pretending you are fed up is no excuse to avoid acknowledging when you have been completely wrong and tried to grossly misrepresent me.

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Lillydale]

reply to post by Aeons


So once again you don't want to answer the questions and wish to deflect away from them?

Very well, so in other words you feel it's alright to disregard the needs of the victim and to victimize her again for your own pleasure?

Some how this represents justice to the victim

Some how the victim herself was wrong in accepting restitution for being victimized and that it's unfair to other victims who weren't victimized by rich perpetrators so therefore she deserves to suffer more

And of course lets try to sensantionalize the issue and personally indict anyone who doesn't want to further victimize the victim and believes in victim's rights?

This makes functional behavoir as opposed to dysfunctional behavior?

It's very hard to understand the nature of such convoluted and circular and self serving thinking but I am trying

Originally posted by Lillydale
Right, so you lied for a third time about what I was saying in a forum where people can just simply look and read it but who is counting.

Whatever you say, although you didn't defend him specifically, your tag team partner sure has. I do apologize though for letting things get jumbled, but i've made no secret of the fact that crimes against children fill me with rage.

Actually I stated rather succinctly that I was not defending him or what he did. I also said more than once that drugging and raping a 13 year old girl is deplorable. I guess reading was not your strong suit.

You missed or skimmed over quite a few of my posts as well.

Did she say that she thinks he was innocent or did she say that enough has been done and any further action would simply victimize her even more? There is a difference.

She is NOT the one who hands down the sentence, she testified and he plead guilty. Since WHEN has the victim had ANY legal say in how their attacker is punished? That isn't how our justice system works, it's NOT up to her to decide he's had enough.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler



Duck and cover. Spin and lie. Participate in logic errors all you want.

Justice is not a moralistic set point. Justice is not vengenance.

You can try and make the case that special people deserve special treatment.

Or that adults are the victims of predatory children.

Or that unethical and immoral are alright if you can pay your way out.

That the state has no rights to enforce justice.

Or any number of other emotive logic errors that are spun to make rape appropriate.

We are smarter than you think. We see you. Don't you worry. We all see you.

[edit on 2009/9/30 by Aeons]

Originally posted by 27jd
Whatever you say, although you didn't defend him specifically, your tag team partner sure has. I do apologize though for letting things get jumbled, but i've made no secret of the fact that crimes against children fill me with rage.

I hate that I have to repeat so many ENGLISH sentences. I am not part of a team, duo, group, or anything else. I am sorry that you are in such shock that more than one person does not agree with you. Just out of curiosity, are you just as furious with all the men that starred with Tracy?

You missed or skimmed over quite a few of my posts as well.

Funny and yet no examples of all this stuff that I missed? I guess none of it was all that important then.

She is NOT the one who hands down the sentence, she testified and he plead guilty. Since WHEN has the victim had ANY legal say in how their attacker is punished? That isn't how our justice system works, it's NOT up to her to decide he's had enough.

Did you really just use that "this is the way it always was" argument on me about this? You are not serious with that are you? Unfortunately you have no choice but to recognize international laws as well as statute of limitations restrictions.

Let me ask this yet again....

This will cost me and you money and will do little to punish him and nothing to deter anyone and will make her and her CHILDREN suffer so why are we so eager to get all that under way again?

reply to post by Aeons


So in other words you will make my arguments for me even though I have not put forth any of those arguments while you claim to not be deflecting away from the questions I have put to you, while once again not answering them, but to instead claim I am somehow deflecting away from your contentions I have answered time and time again and the questions you have asked time and time again?

Alright! Exactly is who is all that is seeing what here?

The victim is satisfied Justice is served, Justice should always serve the victim.

Simple logic, with no flaw involved. If I have been injured and the injury is addressed to my satisfaction I am no longer injured!

That's how I live my life.

Basically you just want to use other people's responsive attempts to respond to what you initiate as a platform to espouse your own warped sense of Justice.

He was looking at 48 more days in excess of what the State had agreed to per the decree of a whymisical judge ignoring the agreement the State had already entered into .

So based on your arguments of the State and Justice as opposed to your own personal views.

Would him serving that additional 48 days in jail, plus the five years typically handed out as a maximum penalty for escape satisfy you?

Originally posted by Aeons
Justice is not a moralistic set point. Justice is not vengenance.

+

Now if people did what this man actually deserved - that would be reclaiming the right to vengenance.

=?

I thought you were advocating vengeance and now you are condemning it?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Lillydale]

Ah. Pumpkin. Did a judge look at the facts and realize that this guy got away with something disgusting, and was inappropriately sentenced for it?

That's a judges' perogative. And good on him.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by Aeons
Justice is not a moralistic set point. Justice is not vengenance.

+

Now if people did what this man actually deserved - that would be reclaiming the right to vengenance.

=?

I thought you were advocating vengeance and now you are condemning it?

[edit on 30-9-2009 by Lillydale]

You make me sad. I really work hard at bringing down complicated political theory into the realm that a larger section of people can grasp.

I apparently am going to have too see if I can turn the concept of Justice in a democratic society with human rights and societal equality into a microwave burrito for you.

Originally posted by Aeons
Ah. Pumpkin. Did a judge look at the facts and realize that this guy got away with something disgusting, and was inappropriately sentenced for it?

That's a judges' perogative. And good on him.

So once again you can not answer any question directly put to you?

Very well then I shall stop giving you the opportunity then to use my honest interaction with you as a dishonest platform for promoting your own views that run counter to what the actual laws are even.

Justice has been served in this case per the victim.

Justice should always serve the victim where and when a true crime has occured.

I will be placing you on ignore now

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by Aeons
Ah. Pumpkin. Did a judge look at the facts and realize that this guy got away with something disgusting, and was inappropriately sentenced for it?

That's a judges' perogative. And good on him.

So once again you can not answer any question directly put to you?

Very well then I shall stop giving you the opportunity then to use my honest interaction with you as a dishonest platform for promoting your own views that run counter to what the actual laws are even.

Justice has been served in this case per the victim.

Justice should always serve the victim where and when a true crime has occured.

I will be placing you on ignore now

I know. Addressing your intent rather than allowing you to control the discussion to direct as dishonestly as you please always makes the the obfuscators unhappy.

Happy to oblige.

Originally posted by Aeons
You make me sad. I really work hard at bringing down complicated political theory into the realm that a larger section of people can grasp.

I apparently am going to have too see if I can turn the concept of Justice in a democratic society with human rights and societal equality into a microwave burrito for you.

Are you really talking down to me? You have been asked the same question how many times now? All we are getting back is insults? Impressive, really.