OT: James Gunn Mega thread

Jul 26, 2018 23:10:26 GMT Skaathar said:

Jul 26, 2018 18:53:32 GMT Tristan's Journal said:

really 

Gunn refers to one of the snuff-videos showing an eagle snatch a toddler and kill the child. "I get lucky" is an popular idiom meaning to GET SEX.

Normal people are shocked by a child getting snatched by a predatory animal. Not so with Gunn, instead of feeling shock or sympathy, he identifies himself with the predator and spins it into a sick child-rape joke again.

Btw, it is not uncommon that pedos do pay large sums not only to rape a child, but to be allowed kill it afterwards as special climax, as a predator would.

Leaves the question, PresidentAckbar has debunked and falsified your position entirely. What are you Gunn apologists hoping to prove? That deep down, we're all as ugly as you...?   
 

We already know Gunn has a dark sense of humor, that doesn't mean he's a pedo. "

none of this makes sense, yes obviously he has a dark (depraved) "humor", but that does not stand in any correlation with him being a pedo.

A pedophile is an adult who is sexually attracted to children. What makes Gunn seem a pedophile are dozens of his own tweets in which he made child-rape comments and jokes, not ABOUT pedophils but rather for and in favor of pedephils/pedophilia with him sexually abusing children or him enjoying sexual acts in relation with children. Also, his contacts and edorsement of convicted pedophiles and pedo organisations like NAMBLA.

Even if Gunn was no pedophile that would make it WORSE as it shows that he is a psychopath making fun of him raping and sexual abusing children systematically and endoring the (highly criminal and damaging) cause of pedophilia even without having a pedo disposition himself.

surely it can, but why not go with the reasonable and obvious one?  Like a court would, namely the one how language is generally understood, especially in contex with a guy who relentlessly makes comments about him enjoying raping children or children being sexually assaulted. 

Even if we used your far out interpretation: "getting lucky" is a pretty psychopathic reaction to seeing a child snatched by a predator. Maybe similar to someone seeing a monkey sexually assault a child, and the traumatised, screaming child making that someone "extremely happy"? That does not sound like James "I like it when they touch me in my silly place" Gunn at all, right...?

You lack basic understanding of interpretation rules. Interpretation of text does not require proof, the evidence are the tweets made by Gunn. A court of law or tribunal interprets as follows since Ancient Roman law times (simplified): 

1. Word interpretation: what does the text say? What is the meaning of idioms (check all dictionaries about "getting lucky")? Then:

2. Context interpretation: in which social and cultural context was the statement made?

3. Ratio/spirit: what is the meaning and intention of the words in ralation with the history, do they further a cause?

4.Contra proferentem rule: any ambiguous statement will in doubt be interpreted against the interests of the party that made that statement.

There is a reason Disney called Gunn's statements "indefensible". Listen to your Mouse house, they may make movies for children, but they are smart and very well advised.

or more likely this non sequitur shows your ignorance of basic interpretation rules and good morals when defending a guy making blatant child rape and other depraved comments and instead blaming those who are disgusted by it.

Which brings me back to my initial question: What are you hoping to prove? That deep down, we're all as ugly as you...?