|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 21, 2018 22:47:24 GMT
The difference between Bryan Singer and James Gunn is in background. Gunn's beginning in the entertainment industry was working for Lloyd Kaufman, founder and owner of Troma Studios which produces low-budget independent media that specializes in horror, known for especially incorporating elements of farce, parody, gore, and splatter aimed primarily at very niche adult-targeted demographic audiences - The stylistic approach to humor was/is intended to reach for shock-and-awe with very weird situations and characters. Gunn's work with Kaufman led to getting hired for Scooby-Doo which was originally meant to be a more adult geared satire of the IP before Warner Bros. issued reshoots and further editing to bring it down to an acceptable rating so families could all see it. For years Gunn and his associates were known for having and utilizing bizarre, shock-and-awe humor and when social media became a thing it made sense for him and his friends to use such humor in their postings because at the time nobody really cared about how inappropriate you were and it maintained the image of "bizarre and extreme independent artist type". So as inappropriate and questionable his tweets from years ago may be it is pretty well likely that they were nothing more than shock-and-awe humor which he was known for at the time and nothing else, this is coupled with the currently existing knowledge that Gunn has had no allegations made at him before or after he was fired from Disney, nor has it been reported that he made some very questionable decisions on set of his work.
Bryan Singer however does not have a background in comedy - work from his days a hobbyist filmmaker were as stone serious as his professionally made features were when he transitioned - and he isn't really known for having a particular sense of humor he likes to express amongst friends or on set, nor were his social media postings any bit reflective of such, either. Singer has a bit of history of making questionable decisions on his movies, with his wealth and circle of friends( which include the likes of Kevin Spacey and Gary Goddard), and has had accusations made over the years. When looking over all the data Singer is considerably much more eye brow raising of the two, but anything is possible no matter how unlikely a person may appear to be to you of committing such actions.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Oct 22, 2018 1:59:28 GMT
To summarize this thread: James Gunn has never been accused of abusing a kid, but he made pedo jokes on Twitter and made movies I really disliked, so he’s a disgusting despicable pedophile. Bryan Singer is definitely a pedophile and might have raped a few kids, but he made movies I really liked, so it’s ok. to summarize, you are as clumsy as you are stupid, zombie brains. You do not even understand the meaning of words. Whatever kind of creep Singer is, how can he be a pedo if he was never accused of having assaulted prepubescent kids? James "I like it when little boys touch me in my silly place" Gunn made countless pedophilic comments, vids, pics and blogs regarding babies, kids and teens and endorsed Nambla and convicted pedos. This is why nobody takes you seriously btw. I know what the word pedophile means. I said he was a pedophile because YOU said/implied he was one earlier in the thread, Dumbo. I was summarizing your posting in this thread. You said this in a reply to a picture of Singer dressed up as a catholic priest: “It is creepy how pedophiles dress up as catholic priests”. Then you said this about him: “Still, he feels like a pedo, strongly so”. Then you implied he was a pedo a couple more times. Then all of a sudden: “How can he be a pedo?”.
|
|
|
Post by summers8 on Oct 22, 2018 4:50:52 GMT
you know a bigger takeaway from this. Gunn has gone over to WB.
Says a lot of why DC is still so solid and marvel is in a low state.
mcu disney are too unrealistically obsessed with having a kid friendly image that gunn was so easily dismissed.
|
|
|
Post by charzhino on Oct 22, 2018 9:10:41 GMT
When looking over all the data Singer is considerably much more eye brow raising of the two, but anything is possible no matter how unlikely a person may appear to be to you of committing such actions. It is still conjecture. Just because he is quiet and low key compared to Gunn, I don't see how that makes him more prone to being a paedophile. But your last statement holds true for both Gunn and Singer so theres no gains made either way.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 22, 2018 9:12:30 GMT
to summarize, you are as clumsy as you are stupid, zombie brains. You do not even understand the meaning of words. Whatever kind of creep Singer is, how can he be a pedo if he was never accused of having assaulted prepubescent kids? James "I like it when little boys touch me in my silly place" Gunn made countless pedophilic comments, vids, pics and blogs regarding babies, kids and teens and endorsed Nambla and convicted pedos. This is why nobody takes you seriously btw. I know what the word pedophile means. I said he was a pedophile because YOU said/implied he was one earlier in the thread, Dumbo. I was summarizing your posting in this thread. You said this in a reply to a picture of Singer dressed up as a catholic priest: “It is creepy how pedophiles dress up as catholic priests”. Then you said this about him: “Still, he feels like a pedo, strongly so”. Then you implied he was a pedo a couple more times. Then all of a sudden: “How can he be a pedo?”. yeah, I called him a pedo bc when writing I did not know that Singer was actually never accused of having assaulted prepubescent children or infants but only of teenage boys (and been acquitted of it). Which makes a huge differece on every count (legally and clinically).
So your summary was even lower than I thought: you positively knew that Singer was never accused of pedo acts and yet you tried to deflect James "cum-stained boys make me EXTREMELY HAPPY" Gunn's pedo depravity by defaming Singer and creating false equivalences and straw men...? Says all about you. Send the raptor my regards.
Anyway, what your summary shows again is that you will never get nuanced thinking. Singer could have abused a hundred Canadian choir boys and this would still not affect the quality of his work. James "Eagle snatches kid is what I call getting when I get lucky" Gunn however is a swine and his work is a piece of lowbrow hack-ery.
That's the other essential difference: two depraved animals that are more or less equal, only one shits pearls occasionally the other raccoon turds.
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Oct 22, 2018 9:27:43 GMT
I know what the word pedophile means. I said he was a pedophile because YOU said/implied he was one earlier in the thread, Dumbo. I was summarizing your posting in this thread. You said this in a reply to a picture of Singer dressed up as a catholic priest: “It is creepy how pedophiles dress up as catholic priests”. Then you said this about him: “Still, he feels like a pedo, strongly so”. Then you implied he was a pedo a couple more times. Then all of a sudden: “How can he be a pedo?”. yeah, I called him a pedo bc when writing I did not know that Singer was actually never accused of having assaulted prepubescent children or infants but only of teenage boys (and been acquitted of it). Which makes a huge differece on every count (legally and clinically).
So your summary was even lower than I thought: you positively knew that Singer was never accused of pedo acts and yet you tried to deflect James "cum-stained boys make me EXTREMELY HAPPY" Gunn's pedo depravity by defaming Singer and creating false equivalences and straw men...? Says all about you. Send the raptor my regards.
Anyway, what your summary shows again is that you will never get nuanced thinking. Singer could have abused a hundred Canadian choir boys and this would still not affect the quality of his work. James "Eagle snatches kid is what I call getting when I get lucky" Gunn however is a swine and his work is a piece of lowbrow hack-ery.
That's the other essential difference: two depraved animals that are more or less equal, only one shits pearls occasionally the other raccoon turds.
I wasn’t stating my opinion on the matter, I was summarizing your posts, you moron. Which means I wasn’t calling him a pedophile, I was implying you called him a pedophile because you did. Where did I say or imply Singer’s behavior affected the quality of his work? WHERE? Nowhere that’s where. So let me get this straight, if a horrible person makes good movies he’s not as bad as a horrible person who makes bad movies? Nice logic bro. True fanboy logic. I mean, why else would you bring up the fact that Singer makes better movies than Gunn? It’s completely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 22, 2018 10:50:19 GMT
yeah, I called him a pedo bc when writing I did not know that Singer was actually never accused of having assaulted prepubescent children or infants but only of teenage boys (and been acquitted of it). Which makes a huge differece on every count (legally and clinically).
So your summary was even lower than I thought: you positively knew that Singer was never accused of pedo acts and yet you tried to deflect James "cum-stained boys make me EXTREMELY HAPPY" Gunn's pedo depravity by defaming Singer and creating false equivalences and straw men...? Says all about you. Send the raptor my regards.
Anyway, what your summary shows again is that you will never get nuanced thinking. Singer could have abused a hundred Canadian choir boys and this would still not affect the quality of his work. James "Eagle snatches kid is what I call getting when I get lucky" Gunn however is a swine and his work is a piece of lowbrow hack-ery.
That's the other essential difference: two depraved animals that are more or less equal, only one shits pearls occasionally the other raccoon turds.
So let me get this straight, if a horrible person makes good movies he’s not as bad as a horrible person who makes bad movies? Nice logic bro. True fanboy logic. I mean, why else would you bring up the fact that Singer makes better movies than Gunn? It’s completely irrelevant. lol, no I am afraid there is nothing straight about you, Nicko. You are simply too obtuse to realize how stupid you are. It is pointless to discuss with a person like you. Just for fun, let me spin your straw man idiocy a la Zombie Brains: Summary of Nico "the bloody nose" Zombie Brains:
I notice you came out of the MCU closet recently, I wonder when you get out of the pedo closet too?
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Oct 22, 2018 10:54:36 GMT
So let me get this straight, if a horrible person makes good movies he’s not as bad as a horrible person who makes bad movies? Nice logic bro. True fanboy logic. I mean, why else would you bring up the fact that Singer makes better movies than Gunn? It’s completely irrelevant. lol, no I am afraid there is nothing straight about you, Nicko. You are simply too obtuse to realize how stupid you are. It is pointless to discuss with a person like you. Just for fun, let me spin your straw man idiocy a la Zombie Brains: Summary of Nico "the bloody nose" Zombie Brains:
I notice you came out of the MCU closet recently, I wonder when you get out of the pedo closet too?
So basically you’ve run out of arguments. Cool.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 22, 2018 11:35:44 GMT
lol, no I am afraid there is nothing straight about you, Nicko. You are simply too obtuse to realize how stupid you are. It is pointless to discuss with a person like you. Just for fun, let me spin your straw man idiocy a la Zombie Brains: Summary of Nico "the bloody nose" Zombie Brains:
I notice you came out of the MCU closet recently, I wonder when you get out of the pedo closet too?
So basically you’ve run out of arguments. Cool. guys like you need daddy's belt and the boot of the law. But let's recapitulate your and your pedo ilk's argumentive failure from the beginning:
Your failure is complete.
|
|
|
Post by Tristan's Journal on Oct 22, 2018 11:49:16 GMT
well, at least you got half of it, that is more than Zombie Brains could ever aspire to. That is correct: Singer seems hebephile (12-15) at worst or rather ephebophilia (later 15-19) , which is much more common a sexual deviation than pedophilia. no, incorrect. It's a huge difference to sodomize a prepubescent or a teen in terms of damage and abuse. In many western countries, especially Europe, sexual freedom begins as from turning 14. It has nothing to do with being PC: The difference is defined under the law and psychiatry (abusing an infant you get a quasi life sentence, while dating a teen will only get you a few years or conditional sentence).
That then means my father must've been a hebephile when he met my mother, because she was 15 and he had just turned 21. She was 18 when she married him, so that means then he became a ephebophile.
not necessarily, check the exact definition of the terms; requires persistent sexual interest in those age groups. Apart from your mom, does your dad show persistent sexual interest in those age brackets, like a fixation, like masturbating to young teen porn videos? Ask him, or maybe your mom, she will likely know.`
But don't worry, in most civilized jurisdictions sexual liberty starts with completing the 14th year. While its creepy when having a fetish for 15-19 year olds, I agree with that basic ruling.
|
|
|
Post by JudgeJuryDredd on Oct 22, 2018 18:06:27 GMT
When looking over all the data Singer is considerably much more eye brow raising of the two, but anything is possible no matter how unlikely a person may appear to be to you of committing such actions. It is still conjecture. Just because he is quiet and low key compared to Gunn, I don't see how that makes him more prone to being a paedophile. But your last statement holds true for both Gunn and Singer so theres no gains made either way. It does not, however he has been accused of questionable behavior on and off set before even when he was hot off of the success of The Usual Suspects, which according to Gabriel Byrne had filming hold-ups because of Kevin Spacey's inappropriate behavior - to which Singer, who is very close to Fowler, has denied.
|
|