|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 9, 2019 22:39:58 GMT
Cut from How many of you ever cried over Sharon Tate? in General Discussion. Yes, it really is all about perspective, isn't it, Warren Peace? And according to Samatha Geimer's testimony, she had posed in the nude before she met Polanski and was sexually active with older men (pre-Polanski) and that the worst trauma experienced over the entire debacle was from the press and the court system. And you talk about having to live a lifetime full of unspeakable horrors, you might as go ahead and give full honors to Mr. Polanski. (I find him beyond reproach.) And what about Roman Polanski? He live through the Holocaust and then lost his beautiful young wife and unborn child to a slaughterhouse. You think that he has not had to learn to live with these horrifying, painful, despicable memories? Oh, wait, you probably don't care about what RP has had to go through. But then you also don't care one bit about Samantha Geimer, because, guess what?, she doesn't care herself. So, what it comes down to is your rage and your anger and resentment that the outcome wasn't what you expecting. Samantha was given a pill and champagne and sodomized. and, according to her, she had done it before... You are desperate to find a place to unleash all your anger and your bloodlust, but your outrage belongs to you and nobody else and, in this case, it really is ridiculous and unwarranted. You have, like so many others, incredible bloodlust and you just haven't found the most appropriate place to deploy. Obviously you already know my standpoint on the matter. Sharon Tate doesn't have to live with the horrible of it or the pain. And the reason is that she had her life taken away in unbelivably brutal fashion. She'd dead. Samantha Geimer is alive and doing well, so tell me exactly is it that has got your panties in a bunch over what became a non issue by 1978? You do know that rape victims can choose to get help to overcome the past. Just do a Youtube search on Oprah. You'll find plenty of company there. Sharon's choices were immediately taken away from her. And yes you did say that Sharon Tate was better off dead, when you said that it is the rape victim who may or not suffer every day (really, though, like anything in life, unless we are dead, we ALWAYS have a choice.) And you never even mentioned Sharon's unborn baby, who never even got to see his first birthday. He was slaughtered in the womb. You are pretty easy to read. You have your point of view, but do you realize that the person that you are ostensibly rallying for "got over it" before you probably born. Sorry to tell you this, but Samantha Geimer doesn't want you in her corner. You're just going to remind of everything, and, do you begrudge her wanting to move past and get on with their life? Because you and your ilk are dojng the opposite of anything that is therapeutic and helpful and compassionate. This has nothing to be SG, though it has everything to do with your childish inability to just let it go. What all this comes down to is the individual's POV that they cannot stand that Polanski got away with it. Good for him. Nobody deserves to feel "safe" more than Roman Polanski. And I hope that you are not somehow excusing Roman Polanski's having to find a way to survive while his family members were being gassed as an easier, less traumatic pass than Samantha Geimer's one time thing. You do know about that part of his childhood, or no? Maybe you don't care that he went through that as a young child. Or maybe you'll say something like "Of course, I care about what happened to the Jewish people et al during the Nazi Regime", but your mindset is stuck on the statutory rape and Roman only having to serve 45 days, before his escape. He knew a lot about escape, see, from fashioning a foreskin with wax, to learning basic German, to hiding out in movie theater. You couldn't care less about Samantha Geimer. You just can't accept the fact that he escaped. It's people like you that put a little smile on my face for getting a bite on the ass for having their priorities so very backwards. Yeah, you could say I think Sharon suffered about 100,000 times more than Samantha Geimer. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. - Mahatma Gandhi. So the fact that she had been statutorily raped by older men before Polanski, means that he should somehow get a pass?  She said in subsequent interviews that she FORGAVE him for what he did. That means she acknowledges that what he did with her was felony. So the fact that he is a Holocaust survivor, as well as suffered the trauma of the murder of his wife & unborn child means that he should have gotten a pass from the judicial system?  Going by that argument, Cary Staynor should have gotten a pass from the judicial system, because his brother had been abducted for several years, & then was killed a few years later in a motorcycle accident. Personal tragedy is no excuse for causing tragedy for others. Even if Sharon Tate & her child had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them both very great shame & disgrace. Make no mistake: I am not condoning the murders of Sharon and her unborn child (for the record, I happen to be pro life. I consider abortion a legalized form of infanticide, so yes, I consider Sharon Tate's unborn baby, her fellow murder victim by the Manson cult). However, from my own POV, both the Manson family & Roman Polanski are both horribly criminal in both their own ways. How did Polanski get a pass from the judicial system? Yes, I know you give allegiance to one of the most notorious and pedophilic institutions in the world and a corrupt organization that also rides on the teachings of Christ and forgiveness, yet you want to flay someone for something you really know jack squat about haven't an inkling of understanding or empathic knowledge of what really transpired. Now stop being a liar, like I already previously mentioned to you the other day.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 9, 2019 22:52:02 GMT
So the fact that she had been statutorily raped by older men before Polanski, means that he should somehow get a pass? She said in subsequent interviews that she FORGAVE him for what he did. That means she acknowledges that what he did with her was felony. So the fact that he is a Holocaust survivor, as well as suffered the trauma of the murder of his wife & unborn child means that he should have gotten a pass from the judicial system? Going by that argument, Cary Staynor should have gotten a pass from the judicial system, because his brother had been abducted for several years, & then was killed a few years later in a motorcycle accident. Personal tragedy is no excuse for causing tragedy for others. Even if Sharon Tate & her child had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them both very great shame & disgrace. Make no mistake: I am not condoning the murders of Sharon and her unborn child (for the record, I happen to be pro life. I consider abortion a legalized form of infanticide, so yes, I consider Sharon Tate's unborn baby, her fellow murder victim by the Manson cult). However, from my own POV, both the Manson family & Roman Polanski are both horribly criminal in both their own ways. How did Polanski get a pass from the judicial system? Yes, I know you give allegiance to one of the most notorious and pedophilic institutions in the world and a corrupt organization that also rides on the teachings of Christ and forgiveness, yet you want to flay someone for something you really know jack squat about haven't an inkling of understanding or empathic knowledge of what really transpired. Now stop being a liar, like I already previously mentioned to you the other day. I never said he got a pass from the judicial system. Dirty_pillows indicated that he should, by stating that Samantha Gaimer was more traumatized by the court case than by being raped by him, & by saying that he is above reproach. And no, I do not give any allegiance to any pedophiliac institution. I oppose pedophilia. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought up Polanski here. The only liar I see around here is you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 10, 2019 1:35:45 GMT
How did Polanski get a pass from the judicial system? Yes, I know you give allegiance to one of the most notorious and pedophilic institutions in the world and a corrupt organization that also rides on the teachings of Christ and forgiveness, yet you want to flay someone for something you really know jack squat about haven't an inkling of understanding or empathic knowledge of what really transpired. Now stop being a liar, like I already previously mentioned to you the other day. I never said he got a pass from the judicial system. Dirty_pillows indicated that he should, by stating that Samantha Gaimer was more traumatized by the court case than by being raped by him, & by saying that he is above reproach. And no, I do not give any allegiance to any pedophiliac institution. I oppose pedophilia. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought up Polanski here. The only liar I see around here is you. Bollocks! This is what you said: If dirtypillows indicated that he should, you are then indicating that he shouldn't. If you oppose pedophilia, you wouldn't be a Catholic. Stop with your lies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 10, 2019 1:39:42 GMT
So the fact that she had been statutorily raped by older men before Polanski, means that he should somehow get a pass? She said in subsequent interviews that she FORGAVE him for what he did. That means she acknowledges that what he did with her was felony. So the fact that he is a Holocaust survivor, as well as suffered the trauma of the murder of his wife & unborn child means that he should have gotten a pass from the judicial system? Going by that argument, Cary Staynor should have gotten a pass from the judicial system, because his brother had been abducted for several years, & then was killed a few years later in a motorcycle accident. Personal tragedy is no excuse for causing tragedy for others. Even if Sharon Tate & her child had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them both very great shame & disgrace. Make no mistake: I am not condoning the murders of Sharon and her unborn child (for the record, I happen to be pro life. I consider abortion a legalized form of infanticide, so yes, I consider Sharon Tate's unborn baby, her fellow murder victim by the Manson cult). However, from my own POV, both the Manson family & Roman Polanski are both horribly criminal in both their own ways. I don't know how is Carl STynow and I could not care less. If you want to put it that way, let God give Roman a free pass. God is obviously more merciful and compassion than some of you are. If there is a God, it wouldn't even care that Polanski dipped his wick into a lying, scheming and experienced little tramp. God would be more concerned by his flock being so dense, phony and lack forgiveness for something that doesn't even really need forgiving. If anyone came out the victim here, it is Polanski. Like you said Mr. Dirty, Gemier doesn't even want these twerps on her side.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 10, 2019 3:31:42 GMT
I never said he got a pass from the judicial system. Dirty_pillows indicated that he should, by stating that Samantha Gaimer was more traumatized by the court case than by being raped by him, & by saying that he is above reproach. And no, I do not give any allegiance to any pedophiliac institution. I oppose pedophilia. Otherwise, I wouldn't have brought up Polanski here. The only liar I see around here is you. Bollocks! This is what you said: If dirtypillows indicated that he should, you are then indicating that he shouldn't. If you oppose pedophilia, you wouldn't be a Catholic. Stop with your lies. No I'm not indicating that he shouldn't. He/she said that he/she found Polanski beyond reproach, despite being convicted of statutory rape, simply because he was a Holocaust survivor & the murder of his wife & unborn child. And for the record, it is precisely because I am a devout Catholic, that I oppose pedophilia. The fact that you posted such an ignorant statement just goes to show you do know jack about the Catholic Church, Bigot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 10, 2019 7:25:02 GMT
Bollocks! This is what you said: If dirtypillows indicated that he should, you are then indicating that he shouldn't. If you oppose pedophilia, you wouldn't be a Catholic. Stop with your lies. No I'm not indicating that he shouldn't. He/she said that he/she found Polanski beyond reproach, despite being convicted of statutory rape, simply because he was a Holocaust survivor & the murder of his wife & unborn child. And for the record, it is precisely because I am a devout Catholic, that I oppose pedophilia. The fact that you posted such an ignorant statement just goes to show you do know jack about the Catholic Church, Bigot. He/she is a he, and this is clearly indicated by his avatar. Stop trying to twist your own intention around by being in denial of the context of his post.
And for the record, if you can't acknowledge how much the CC has been maligned over the past 4 decades because of pedo priest accusations, it goes to show how little you know of the phony and corrupt institution in which you fawn over which you feel is beyond reproach, Twit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 10, 2019 8:02:20 GMT
clusium
Looking through the original thread I was struck by your response to the question, "Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" And you answered, "Oh absolutely!!!!"
To make sure nothing's out of context, this is the full exchange: dirtypillows: I'm not talking about her career, but wasn't what happened to Sharon, stabbed multiple times with the unborn child suffering the same thing. These two individuals were nothing short of slaughtered. Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" clusium: "Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, that what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not have killed her or the baby, the baby would be about 50 years old right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be.
That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace."
I can't help but wonder if maybe you misunderstood the question when you answered "Oh absolutely!!!!" Or does that answer accurately express your view?
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 10, 2019 14:23:12 GMT
No I'm not indicating that he shouldn't. He/she said that he/she found Polanski beyond reproach, despite being convicted of statutory rape, simply because he was a Holocaust survivor & the murder of his wife & unborn child. And for the record, it is precisely because I am a devout Catholic, that I oppose pedophilia. The fact that you posted such an ignorant statement just goes to show you do know jack about the Catholic Church, Bigot. He/she is a he, and this is clearly indicated by his avatar. Stop trying to twist your own intention around by being in denial of the context of his post.
And for the record, if you can't acknowledge how much the CC has been maligned over the past 4 decades because of pedo priest accusations, it goes to show how little you know of the phony and corrupt institution in which you fawn over which you feel is beyond reproach, Twit.
I am very well about the problem of priests committing sexual offences, thank you very much. I would like for the Church to be more accountable, in order so that no such crimes happen in the Church again. In other words, live up to her own Teachings!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 10, 2019 14:40:25 GMT
clusium
Looking through the original thread I was struck by your response to the question, "Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" And you answered, "Oh absolutely!!!!"
To make sure nothing's out of context, this is the full exchange: dirtypillows: I'm not talking about her career, but wasn't what happened to Sharon, stabbed multiple times with the unborn child suffering the same thing. These two individuals were nothing short of slaughtered. Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" clusium: "Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, that what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not have killed her or the baby, the baby would be about 50 years old right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be.
That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace."
I can't help but wonder if maybe you misunderstood the question when you answered "Oh absolutely!!!!" Or does that answer accurately express your view? Did you not read my response in full? I said " Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not killed her or her baby, the baby would be about 50 years right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be." I see you have read my post. Perhaps, yes, I did answer in a way that is not understood. I think that BOTH the Mansons & Polanski are very awful,evil people, albeit in different ways. The difference is, the Mansons ARE serving time for their horrible crimes, but, Polanski got away with it, when he flew away to Europe. The irony is, if he had done his sentence, he would have been out of jail right now, whereas the Mansons are in prison right down to this very day (as they should be). Charles Manson himself, died in prison (as again, he should). Keep in mind, that in a later post, on the very same thread, I also said " I am not condoning the murders of Sharon & her unborn child (for the record, I happen to be pro life. I consider a legalized form of infanticide, so yes, I consider Sharon Tate's unborn baby her fellow murder victim by the Manson cult). However, from my own POV, both the Manson family & Roman Polanski are both horrible criminals in both their own ways."
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jul 10, 2019 19:41:51 GMT
clusium
Looking through the original thread I was struck by your response to the question, "Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" And you answered, "Oh absolutely!!!!"
To make sure nothing's out of context, this is the full exchange: dirtypillows: I'm not talking about her career, but wasn't what happened to Sharon, stabbed multiple times with the unborn child suffering the same thing. These two individuals were nothing short of slaughtered. Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" clusium: "Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, that what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not have killed her or the baby, the baby would be about 50 years old right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be.
That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace."
I can't help but wonder if maybe you misunderstood the question when you answered "Oh absolutely!!!!" Or does that answer accurately express your view? Did you not read my response in full? I said " Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not killed her or her baby, the baby would be about 50 years right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be." I see you have read my post. Perhaps, yes, I did answer in a way that is not understood. I think that BOTH the Mansons & Polanski are very awful,evil people, albeit in different ways. The difference is, the Mansons ARE serving time for their horrible crimes, but, Polanski got away with it, when he flew away to Europe. The irony is, if he had done his sentence, he would have been out of jail right now, whereas the Mansons are in prison right down to this very day (as they should be). Charles Manson himself, died in prison (as again, he should). Keep in mind, that in a later post, on the very same thread, I also said " I am not condoning the murders of Sharon & her unborn child (for the record, I happen to be pro life. I consider a legalized form of infanticide, so yes, I consider Sharon Tate's unborn baby her fellow murder victim by the Manson cult). However, from my own POV, both the Manson family & Roman Polanski are both horrible criminals in both their own ways." It's just hard for me to understand how someone who considers statutory rape to be so heinous as to be on par with murder can also be so loyal to the Catholic Church (given what we now know) instead of fleeing from it and not looking back.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 10, 2019 19:44:06 GMT
Did you not read my response in full? I said " Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not killed her or her baby, the baby would be about 50 years right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be." I see you have read my post. Perhaps, yes, I did answer in a way that is not understood. I think that BOTH the Mansons & Polanski are very awful,evil people, albeit in different ways. The difference is, the Mansons ARE serving time for their horrible crimes, but, Polanski got away with it, when he flew away to Europe. The irony is, if he had done his sentence, he would have been out of jail right now, whereas the Mansons are in prison right down to this very day (as they should be). Charles Manson himself, died in prison (as again, he should). Keep in mind, that in a later post, on the very same thread, I also said " I am not condoning the murders of Sharon & her unborn child (for the record, I happen to be pro life. I consider a legalized form of infanticide, so yes, I consider Sharon Tate's unborn baby her fellow murder victim by the Manson cult). However, from my own POV, both the Manson family & Roman Polanski are both horrible criminals in both their own ways."It's just hard for me to understand how someone who considers statutory rape to be so heinous as to be on par with murder can also be so loyal to the Catholic Church (given what we now know) instead of fleeing from it and not looking back. Because we want to fix the problem, because we know that the Catholic Church is the Church Founded By Christ.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Jul 10, 2019 20:03:35 GMT
put the b in boner
gods
had to be created
to deflect
the boy scout masters of ancient times
from
going overboard
with
one too many adorable boys
who were busy
doing
each others chores
deciding
whether or not to
let father drool over their illustrious tool
for the sake of
a flexi flyer
and
six pack of pepsi
during
just another sick day at parochial school.
sjw 07/10/19 inspired at this very moment in time by don't look now but the father is having a heart attack.
from the 'boner series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Jul 10, 2019 22:22:17 GMT
clusium
Looking through the original thread I was struck by your response to the question, "Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" And you answered, "Oh absolutely!!!!"
To make sure nothing's out of context, this is the full exchange: dirtypillows: I'm not talking about her career, but wasn't what happened to Sharon, stabbed multiple times with the unborn child suffering the same thing. These two individuals were nothing short of slaughtered. Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" clusium: "Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, that what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not have killed her or the baby, the baby would be about 50 years old right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be.
That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace."
I can't help but wonder if maybe you misunderstood the question when you answered "Oh absolutely!!!!" Or does that answer accurately express your view? “ That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace." It’s possible had Polanski not lost his wife and child to Manson, he would not have indulged his hedonism so much. But who knows?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 10, 2019 22:23:03 GMT
It's just hard for me to understand how someone who considers statutory rape to be so heinous as to be on par with murder can also be so loyal to the Catholic Church (given what we now know) instead of fleeing from it and not looking back. Because we want to fix the problem, because we know that the Catholic Church is the Church Founded By Christ. Wow! Christ sure wandered off somewhere and didn't care for 'His' church whilst the criminal men allowed other criminal men to commit heinous crims of rape for hundreds of years, that are apparently in your professed view 'worse than murder'. Perhaps he was taking 'free will' ( as you explained it to me in another thread) a little too far?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 11, 2019 9:06:49 GMT
He/she is a he, and this is clearly indicated by his avatar. Stop trying to twist your own intention around by being in denial of the context of his post.
And for the record, if you can't acknowledge how much the CC has been maligned over the past 4 decades because of pedo priest accusations, it goes to show how little you know of the phony and corrupt institution in which you fawn over which you feel is beyond reproach, Twit.
I am very well about the problem of priests committing sexual offences, thank you very much. I would like for the Church to be more accountable, in order so that no such crimes happen in the Church again. In other words, live up to her own Teachings!!!! Yes, well I think the CC has had enough time on this planet as an institution to live up to its own teachings and has failed miserably. Time for it to dissipate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 11, 2019 9:10:55 GMT
It's just hard for me to understand how someone who considers statutory rape to be so heinous as to be on par with murder can also be so loyal to the Catholic Church (given what we now know) instead of fleeing from it and not looking back. Because we want to fix the problem, because we know that the Catholic Church is the Church Founded By Christ. Evidence please and why have the teachings been distorted by the CC?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 11, 2019 9:29:41 GMT
clusium
Looking through the original thread I was struck by your response to the question, "Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" And you answered, "Oh absolutely!!!!"
To make sure nothing's out of context, this is the full exchange: dirtypillows: I'm not talking about her career, but wasn't what happened to Sharon, stabbed multiple times with the unborn child suffering the same thing. These two individuals were nothing short of slaughtered. Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" clusium: "Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, that what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not have killed her or the baby, the baby would be about 50 years old right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be.
That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace."
I can't help but wonder if maybe you misunderstood the question when you answered "Oh absolutely!!!!" Or does that answer accurately express your view? ....Perhaps, yes, I did answer in a way that is not understood. I think that BOTH the Mansons & Polanski are very awful,evil people, albeit in different ways. The difference is, the Mansons ARE serving time for their horrible crimes, but, Polanski got away with it, when he flew away to Europe. The irony is, if he had done his sentence, he would have been out of jail right now, whereas the Mansons are in prison right down to this very day (as they should be). Charles Manson himself, died in prison (as again, he should).... It is because you DO NOT understand the context of it, but will deflect to make something out to be what you want it to be, not what it is. This is typical of religious folk too, due to their belief and delusions in a sky fairy.
What sentence was it that Polanski was supposed to have done? Do you know why he fled? Do you know that the justice system, which failed in its own delivery of justice, did not really want Polanski to show up due to the unethical legal behavior of the presiding Judge Rittenband? His handling of the case and his reaching over the bench after the fact of the plea deal with his absurd claims about a sentence he was going to inflict upon Polanski and renege on the plea deal, could have had him disbarred. All they can get Polanski for now is perverting the course of justice by not showing up, which would have just opened up a new can of worms anyway, which would have made things even more convoluted. The point is, where justice regarding Polanski is concerned, it perverted and imploded upon itself.
Even if Polanski did somehow end up serving a longer sentence for some corrupt legal reason, it wouldn't have been for very long and people such as yourself would still hate upon him and want to flay him, something that his poor little play hard victim is very much opposed too anyway. If she can forgive him, why can't you?
She was an exploited girl, by her mother, Polanski and the media, but she was not and is not damaged goods and had it gone to trial, her own sexual experiences would have come to light with "other" older men, her sexual relationship with her 19yr old bf and if Polanski was being vilified, did they—including her gold-digging mother—need to be hauled up as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Jul 11, 2019 9:50:33 GMT
clusium
Looking through the original thread I was struck by your response to the question, "Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" And you answered, "Oh absolutely!!!!"
To make sure nothing's out of context, this is the full exchange: dirtypillows: I'm not talking about her career, but wasn't what happened to Sharon, stabbed multiple times with the unborn child suffering the same thing. These two individuals were nothing short of slaughtered. Do you really think statutory rape counts are worse than a human slaughterhouse?" clusium: "Oh absolutely!!!! Make no mistake about it, that what happened to her & her unborn child was absolutely tragic. Had the Manson family not have killed her or the baby, the baby would be about 50 years old right now, & most likely married & have kids. So the Mansons not only committed 2 murders here, they wiped out generations from coming to be.
That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace."
I can't help but wonder if maybe you misunderstood the question when you answered "Oh absolutely!!!!" Or does that answer accurately express your view? “ That said, Roman Polanski was a total creep to rape that young girl. Even if Sharon & her baby had not been murdered, Polanski's crime would have caused them great shame & disgrace." It’s possible had Polanski not lost his wife and child to Manson, he would not have indulged his hedonism so much. But who knows? Polanski was diagnosed a depressant, he wasn't considered a pedophile and coming from France where he had been living for some time, what Polanski did with Geimer wasn't considered illegal in France at the time. I don't even think he knew how old Geimer actually was and she was a bright and advanced woman child. Considering all the pervious tumultuous events that had gone on his life prior, having sex with this young girl, who in all likelihood, would have lied to Polanski about her age if he asked her. It wasn't the first time for her either with older men, which I believe she has been open about in her book.
Because it never went to trial and Polanski refused to plead guilty to a rape charge and the evidence was wishy washy anyway and that Geimer wouldn't have been a good witness, the plea deal was considered the best option. Only Polanski and Geimer would know if he knew how old she was, what she told him and if he knew it was illegal. I doubt that even crossed his mind though.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 11, 2019 13:37:20 GMT
I am very well about the problem of priests committing sexual offences, thank you very much. I would like for the Church to be more accountable, in order so that no such crimes happen in the Church again. In other words, live up to her own Teachings!!!! Yes, well I think the CC has had enough time on this planet as an institution to live up to its own teachings and has failed miserably. Time for it to dissipate. No, it is not. The Catholic Church stays, whether you like it or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Jul 11, 2019 13:47:49 GMT
Because we want to fix the problem, because we know that the Catholic Church is the Church Founded By Christ. Evidence please and why have the teachings been distorted by the CC? 1)The Very Words Of Christ Himself: St. Matthew chapter 18,verse 9: " If anyone causes any of these little ones who believe in Me, to stumble, it is better for them to have a large milestone tied around their necks, and drowned in the depths of the sea."2) From the Catechism of the Catholic Church: " 2356: Rape is the forcible violation of sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It can cause grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them."
|
|
