Roman Polanski arrested (discuss)...

[gtc]

Yes but does RP have a weiner?

 

[johnny karate]

I think we are now officially out of contention for the Classiest Thread Award.

 

[applecorped]

I think we are now officially out of contention for the Classiest Thread Award.

And it had such potential.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Irrelevant: in those places children, especially female, are considered property, women can't divorce or get healthcare outside of what their male family allows, etc.

As I said earlier, a recurring problem in this thread is that people feel quite entitled to state non-evidence-based but firmly held beliefs as fact. Last time I checked it was not true that children, especially female, are considered property, women can't divorce or get healthcare outside of what their male family allows and so on in Austria, Germany, Canada, Iceland or Italy.

His point has always been and continues to be that it's "unfair" to call an adult having sex with a minor "rape" unless the victim sustains injuries (which in his mind is the only way to objectively "prove" the sex was coerced). In other words, the entire debate is over a semantic point; kind of like the whole "Bright" issue.

I've never said that. What sick sense of self-entitlement makes you and Varwoche think that these kind of defamatory lies are acceptable?

Ah! Allowing you to conveniently ignore the point he made earlier.

I can't stop him lying. The mods obviously do not consider his lies a breach of the membership agreement, or they couldn't be bothered sorting through what I actually said to determine whether he is lying. The only other recourse is to ignore him.

Are you willing to give a citation for that?

I'm summarising the results of a very lengthy thread for your benefit. If you want a citation go back to the thread and do your own homework.

Historically, females were property and could be married off whenever the father felt the need. Likewise with today, the girls who are married off young are in countries where women have little to no rights.

Can you think of reasons why that is no longer the case? Can you think of reasons why a relationship between equals is considered the ideal?

Firstly, rhetorical questions are a give-away that you do not have an actual argument. If you have an actual argument you can state it in a declarative form. Try to rewrite your arguments properly and I think you'll find you end up with a few paragraphs of nothing but handwaving.

Secondly, you're in the same basket as Flo in having non-evidence-based ideas about the countries that allow early marriage and/or sexual relationships. Probably you watched a documentary or read a column about how terrible it is that women of fourteen are forced into marriages in some Third World hellhole, and then just assumed the rest.

Did you again ignore the questions I asked?

Of course I did. You don't get to make me do your work for you by asking open-ended questions and demanding I answer them. Get your own evidence, answer your own questions, and make your own case.

What are my arguments again?

If you can't keep track of what you said yourself, don't blame me. Scroll back and read your own posts.

Wait, what? You just mused on the girl framing Polanksi and you're, "sticking closely to the evidence and what we can know for certain?"

Maybe it's just me but those two go together like rhino butt scrapings and chocolate.

I have repeatedly asked all present, including yourself, for alternative, reasonable hypotheses that fit the available evidence. Do you have any? I'm open to them if you have them.

However if you don't have them and you're getting upset because I suggested it then I suggest you aren't behaving rationally.

Oh snap, goalposts moved again! Now it's the forensic evidence instead of the damage done by having a vastly unequal relationship!

Those discussions have always been going on in parallel. It's a different set of goalposts to the one you were just complaining about but it's always been there. If you can't keep them straight that's your problem, not mine.

Should I stick to discussing precisely one subject with you at a time so you don't get confused?

So you're getting your nose up in the air about your, "skeptical credentials," when you've repeatedly moved goal posts, made unprovable speculation, and ignored questions?

Gotcha.

The skeptical process doesn't involve answering every stupid question put to you. It doesn't require that you never make a hypothesis or ask if anyone can see a better hypothesis. It doesn't require you to move the goalposts closer for anyone who misses them and can't tell the difference between the goalposts moving and the goalposts not being where they wanted to think they were.

You're damn right I've stuck to the facts and the evidence and received a barrage of slime for it. You're damn right that makes me a better skeptic than the people hurling the slime.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is entirely possible that Polanski's dick is too small to have produced noticeable anal tearing.

That too would fit the available evidence pertaining to injury.

Now we need something to explain the negatives on tests for semen.

 

[LostAngeles]

I can't stop him lying. The mods obviously do not consider his lies a breach of the membership agreement, or they couldn't be bothered sorting through what I actually said to determine whether he is lying. The only other recourse is to ignore him.

And what, pray tell is he lying about? Do you have evidence for this?

I'm summarising the results of a very lengthy thread for your benefit. If you want a citation go back to the thread and do your own homework.

I'm pretty sure that if such a study exists, you can produce the cite.

Firstly, rhetorical questions are a give-away that you do not have an actual argument. If you have an actual argument you can state it in a declarative form. Try to rewrite your arguments properly and I think you'll find you end up with a few paragraphs of nothing but handwaving.

They're not rhetorical. I'm attempting to get you to consider what I'm trying to say.

Secondly, you're in the same basket as Flo in having non-evidence-based ideas about the countries that allow early marriage and/or sexual relationships. Probably you watched a documentary or read a column about how terrible it is that women of fourteen are forced into marriages in some Third World hellhole, and then just assumed the rest.

Do you remember the eight-year old divorcee? She was married off because the husband paid her father for her. She was bought.

In history, women generally had little to no rights. That Egyptian women could even own property was shocking to the Greeks. In Western Civilization, the concept of women having rights not given to them by their husband or father is relatively new. If the father chose, as soon as the girl was mensutrating, he could marry her off.

Flo and I were not talking about, "some Third World hellhole," we were addressing your question of history. But if you'd like to talk about child marriage now, there's plenty to discuss.

Do you have any evidence that it is a good thing?

Of course I did. You don't get to make me do your work for you by asking open-ended questions and demanding I answer them. Get your own evidence, answer your own questions, and make your own case.

I'm asking about the immaturity of children and the power adults have over children. You're evading the questions.

If you can't keep track of what you said yourself, don't blame me. Scroll back and read your own posts.

I'm wondering what you think is my argument.

I have repeatedly asked all present, including yourself, for alternative, reasonable hypotheses that fit the available evidence. Do you have any? I'm open to them if you have them.

However if you don't have them and you're getting upset because I suggested it then I suggest you aren't behaving rationally.

How does the girl framing Polanski for sodomy fit the available evidence?

Those discussions have always been going on in parallel. It's a different set of goalposts to the one you were just complaining about but it's always been there. If you can't keep them straight that's your problem, not mine.

Should I stick to discussing precisely one subject with you at a time so you don't get confused?

That's a load of bull. You're switching the topic to thirty-year old forensics because you don't want to address that issues of a child's immaturity and the power an adult has over a child with respect to sexual relations between adults and children.

The skeptical process doesn't involve answering every stupid question put to you. It doesn't require that you never make a hypothesis or ask if anyone can see a better hypothesis. It doesn't require you to move the goalposts closer for anyone who misses them and can't tell the difference between the goalposts moving and the goalposts not being where they wanted to think they were.

You're damn right I've stuck to the facts and the evidence and received a barrage of slime for it. You're damn right that makes me a better skeptic than the people hurling the slime.

No, you haven't. You haven't provided any evidence, haven't addressed any issues raised by your assertations, and frankly, there's no such thing as, "skeptical credentials." It's not a merit badge.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, you haven't. You haven't provided any evidence, haven't addressed any issues raised by your assertations, and frankly, there's no such thing as, "skeptical credentials." It's not a merit badge.

Okay, we're done. Fruitful discussion with you is not possible.

 

[LostAngeles]

Okay, we're done. Fruitful discussion with you is not possible.

The pronoun that second sentence is the wrong one.

 

[johnny karate]

Kevin, for the sake of moving the discussion forward, I will concede that Polanski did not sodomize the girl.

So what's your point?

Bump for Kevin_Lowe.

 

[Kahalachan]

When people are apologetic about Polanski, this sends a message that "If you commit a crime a long time ago and then become successful, you are absolved of all wrong."

I can sorta see people saying "Polanski is rehabilitated and no longer that person any more so punishment is not needed." I've mostly seen this as a Liberal viewpoint.

Conservative viewpoints encompass deterence and payback.

But my view on justice isn't heavily weighted on any of these. It's not solely about rehabilitation. It's partially about deterence and setting social standards as well and some mild good old fashioned revenge.

So even if Polanski is a fine upstanding citizen, the message that "crime will always go punished and celebs are not exempt from justice" needs to be sent.

 

[Belz...]

Are you really saying identifying the wrong hole is a serious matter? Really?

If she was indeed drugged it would be no surprise that she didn't get that answer right. Who cares if she aced the test or not, anyway ? The point is he did it.

 

[Belz...]

When people are apologetic about Polanski, this sends a message that "If you commit a crime a long time ago and then become successful, you are absolved of all wrong."

It does seem to harken back to antiquity, doesn't it ?

 

[Flo]

When people are apologetic about Polanski, this sends a message that "If you commit a crime a long time ago and then become successful, you are absolved of all wrong."

I can sorta see people saying "Polanski is rehabilitated and no longer that person any more so punishment is not needed." I've mostly seen this as a Liberal viewpoint.

Conservative viewpoints encompass deterence and payback.

But my view on justice isn't heavily weighted on any of these. It's not solely about rehabilitation. It's partially about deterence and setting social standards as well and some mild good old fashioned revenge.

So even if Polanski is a fine upstanding citizen, the message that "crime will always go punished and celebs are not exempt from justice" needs to be sent.

Well said.

 

[varwoche]

How does the girl framing Polanski for sodomy fit the available evidence?

This was the frame job to end all frame jobs. Since Kevin hasn't broken it down, I'll give it a shot:

Scenario 1 -- the entire thing was a frame job: The frame was so profound that it coerced Polanski to falsely confess to unlawful sex with a child, confess to plying her with drugs and alcohol, confess to being aware of her age at the time, and plea to a felony under false pretenses.

Scenario 2 -- only the sodomy was a frame: After the girl was plied with drugs and alcohol and raped, she decided to lie about sodomy for no particular reason. Was this embellishment necessary in order to get Polanski into a heap of trouble? No. Does this seem like the sort of thing a girl would want to brag about? Hardly. This despite that she didn't want to take it to the police from the get-go.

Both scenarios: The frame job was so amazingly awesome that even after Polanski fled, he didn't reveal that he had been framed. And he settled a civil suit for a half million bucks.

More likely, he actually sodomized her. Or she was confused about what happened given that she was intoxicated.

 

[LostAngeles]

This was the frame job to end all frame jobs. Since Kevin hasn't broken it down, I'll give it a shot:

Scenario 1 -- the entire thing was a frame job: The frame was so profound that it coerced Polanski to falsely confess to unlawful sex with a child, confess to plying her with drugs and alcohol, confess to being aware of her age at the time, and plea to a felony under false pretenses.

Scenario 2 -- only the sodomy was a frame: After the girl was plied with drugs and alcohol and raped, she decided to lie about sodomy for no particular reason. Was this embellishment necessary in order to get Polanski into a heap of trouble? No. Does this seem like the sort of thing a girl would want to brag about? Hardly. This despite that she didn't want to take it to the police from the get-go.

Both scenarios: The frame job was so amazingly awesome that even after Polanski fled, he didn't reveal that he had been framed. And he settled a civil suit for a half million bucks.

More likely, he actually sodomized her. Or she was confused about what happened given that she was intoxicated.

Considering you and I both know Kevin won't answer that, thanks.

Any chance you could tell me what you were allegedly lying about with respect to him as well?

 

[Pardalis]

Why did Polanski ask her about her period then?

Often rapists who know their victims sodomize them to avoid getting them pregnant (especially in cases of incest). That pattern of behavior is clear with Polanski.

 

[varwoche]

Considering you and I both know Kevin won't answer that, thanks.

Any chance you could tell me what you were allegedly lying about with respect to him as well?

Not sure. I assume post 391 (which is truthful so far as I'm concerned).

 

[LostAngeles]

Not sure. I assume post 391 (which is truthful so far as I'm concerned).

Well, he wouldn't address my questions about it and I'm wagering has thrown me on ignore in his tantrum.

So which dickhead awarded him the skepticism merit badge? If only I had know, perhaps I could still be asking him about immaturity and control!

 

[gtc]

The French Cultural Minister, Frederic Mitterrand, seems to be getting into trouble over this issue.

His biography in 2005 discusses his frequent visits to Thai brothels

'I got into the habit of paying for boys,'' he wrote, describing the attraction of the young male prostitutes despite being aware of the ''the sordid details'' of the sex trade.
''All these rituals of the market for youths, the slave market excited me enormously.''

Although now he claims that he refers to all male prostitutes as boys and these boys were overage.

It seems the cultural elite were justifying his actions as well:

A former gay activist whose political origins are with the French left, he has never hidden his homosexuality and in 2005, when his autobiography was published, commentators praised him for his honesty.

According to literary critics, however, the book is imbued with a sense of solitude and represented the candid journey of a man whose sexuality was indelibly shaped by early experiences in which he feared rejection.

Mitterand is the one who said:

To see him like that, thrown to the lions because of ancient history, really doesn't make any sense."

"In the same way that there is a generous America that we like, there is also a scary America that has just shown its face."

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Okay, I think at this point I'm out of this thread. I've stuck to the facts and done the homework, both in this thread and previous ones, and gone where the evidence led.

A few other people have done so too, and credit to them where it's due.

For the rest of you: Underage sexual activity is not a simple issue. Research into underage sexuality and its effects is not simple either, and neither are the conclusions of that research.

If you have the time and the chops you can do what I've done and attempt to read a reasonable selection of the best available papers on the issue, and get a clear understanding of what that data actually means.

Alternatively you can try to understand the issue by reading popular web sites written by people who were also too lazy to do the hard work, or by cherry-picking phrases from the conclusions of papers which you haven't fully read and which are using terms which you haven't bothered to check the definitions of. That can allow you to present the illusion of informed understanding, but not the actuality. Or worse yet you can trust posters who have gone down this superficial route and assume that they must be right because they are saying things you want to hear.

This thread has been a rather sad case study of the JREF forums at its worst. Despite a supposedly skeptical posting community only a couple of posters noticed the glaring discrepancy in the presented evidence, because only a couple of us actually bothered to read through the documentary evidence at The Smoking Gun and assess it critically. When the discrepancy was pointed out there was nearly a full day of dead silence because people didn't want to believe it but couldn't find any basis to dispute it. Then someone finally came up with some weak talking points, and everyone rallied behind those talking points despite the fact that they were nothing but handwaving that did nothing to explain away the discrepancy.

I mean, seriously? "She was drunk, she probably couldn't tell her vagina from her anus"? "Who cares whether or not she lied on the stand to frame Polanski for sodomy, how on Earth could something like that matter?". "I see no reason for her to have lied, so I conclude that the forensic evidence must be lying instead". "The girl's uncorroborated statement said that Polanski asked about her period, which confirms the girl's falsified statement that he anally raped her, so the forensic evidence must be lying". "It's the kind of thing Polanski would do, so the forensic evidence must be lying".

These sorts of arguments are frankly embarrassing, even Stundie-worthy. If you're going to call yourself skeptics you need to do much better at critically assessing the facts and following where they lead whether or not you like the conclusions, or even whether or not you like the poster pointing out the facts. Whether you like me or not is not of great concern to me, but if you find that affecting your judgement of the facts you're behaving like a woo, not a rational human being.

Do better in future.