View Full Version : *Roman Polanski Arrested For Rape 13 Year Old*
chesswarsnow
09-27-2009, 09:55 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Hes in jail.
2. Link/sample:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/after-several-tries-us-officials-finally-nab-roman-polanski-in-1970s-rape-case.html
"Three decades after he fled the United States following his arrest for unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl, Roman Polanski was taken into custody in Zurich this morning and faces extradition to Los Angeles.
Polanski, the famed film director whose career continued to flourish even after fleeing for Europe, was arrested as he arrived in the Swiss city to accept an award at the Zurich Film Festival.
The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office learned last week that Polanski had plans to travel to Zurich this weekend, said Sandi Gibbons, spokeswoman for the district attorney’s office. "
3. This dude will do some time now.
4. Hehehehehehe,...sick bastard!
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Indeed,
Tis a very odd case however, given that (as far as i know) the girl who was raped, now a mother, has been asked for the man not to be charged with her rape, very odd indeed.
hjmick
09-27-2009, 10:32 PM
Indeed,
Tis a very odd case however, given that (as far as i know) the girl who was raped, now a mother, has been asked for the man not to be charged with her rape, very odd indeed.
She has no say. He was charged, plea bargained, pled guilty, and ran out before he could be locked up for the duration agreed upon.
She has no say. He was charged, plea bargained, pled guilty, and ran out before he could be locked up for the duration agreed upon.
Indeed, I was just saying it's odd as it kinda puts into question the role of justice, as surly it is their to act for the victim, But what if acting on behalf of the victim means going against the victims wishes? On whose behalf is justice being done?
Mr. P
09-27-2009, 11:03 PM
Indeed, I was just saying it's odd as it kinda puts into question the role of justice, as surly it is their to act for the victim, But what if acting on behalf of the victim means going against the victims wishes? On whose behalf is justice being done?
The Laws behalf which equals society.
The Laws behalf which equals society.
Forgive me for thinking that sounds ever so orwellian,
glockmail
09-28-2009, 07:34 AM
Indeed,
Tis a very odd case however, given that (as far as i know) the girl who was raped, now a mother, has been asked for the man not to be charged with her rape, very odd indeed. He's got money and probably agreed to a hefty pay out just like Michael Jackson did on several occasions.
He's got money and probably agreed to a hefty pay out just like Michael Jackson did on several occasions.
Indeed he may have, but my point cerntres more on justice, and the fact that the law is there to serve the people and protect them, but what if in doing so it goes against what the people its "protecting" want?
avatar4321
09-28-2009, 07:42 AM
The prosecution doesnt act on behalf of the victim. They act on behalf of the state.
glockmail
09-28-2009, 07:45 AM
Indeed he may have, but my point cerntres more on justice, and the fact that the law is there to serve the people and protect them, but what if in doing so it goes against what the people its "protecting" want? In cases like this the witness has to press charges. If the perpetrator has a lot of money he can higher a fancy lawyer and turn the case into an indictment against the victim and maybe get away with the crime, or else offer the victim money to drop the charges. Lots of folks don't want to be dragged through the mud so take the cash. What would you do?
Nukeman
09-28-2009, 07:45 AM
Indeed he may have, but my point cerntres more on justice, and the fact that the law is there to serve the people and protect them, but what if in doing so it goes against what the people its "protecting" want?
I think the point your missing is that this "victim" doesn't want him to go to jail but that may be because she doesn't want to "relive' the whole court experience.
Now for the law part of it he was found guilty and has not served his time... If we were to let everyone go that the victim did not want to prosecute it would be very easy to "intimidate', and "threaten" all witnesses and victims into not wanting prosecution. It opens a whole can of worms for abuse.
As for it being "Orwellian" I really don't think so. he commited a cirme, was found guilty, and skipped out of the country BEFORE his puniushment. This is just a finish of a process started 30 years ago.... He played now he must pay.... I will say if it was my daughter he could have gone to ANY country and I would have followed and taken care of it myself.......!!!!!!!
Righto, in order;
The prosecution doesnt act on behalf of the victim. They act on behalf of the state.
I see, my mistake for being niave on the issue, i thought that the law was there to serve the people, not the state.
In cases like this the witness has to press charges. If the perpetrator has a lot of money he can higher a fancy lawyer and turn the case into an indictment against the victim and maybe get away with the crime, or else offer the victim money to drop the charges. Lots of folks don't want to be dragged through the mud so take the cash. What would you do?
But why does the victim have to press charges in a case like this? I could understand at the time, when she was a young girl and so law should act on her behalf, however, she is now a grown women and has made clear her desire that this man is not prosecuted, should we not respect that?
As for the cash question, it find it impossible to say what i would do in such a situation,
I think the point your missing is that this "victim" doesn't want him to go to jail but that may be because she doesn't want to "relive' the whole court experience.
Indeed maybe it is, or maybe she's found preace within herself, but surly that is for her and her close freinds and fmaily to discuss and decided upon, but from what i can see she has no choice in the matter,
Now for the law part of it he was found guilty and has not served his time... If we were to let everyone go that the victim did not want to prosecute it would be very easy to "intimidate', and "threaten" all witnesses and victims into not wanting prosecution. It opens a whole can of worms for abuse.
That happens anyway, heck, i was assulted about 2 years ago by a guy, and when it was coming to court he sent his mates round to try and intimadate me into dropping it, idiots, but is there any suggestion here that this woman is being intimadated?
As for it being "Orwellian" I really don't think so. he commited a cirme, was found guilty, and skipped out of the country BEFORE his puniushment. This is just a finish of a process started 30 years ago.... He played now he must pay.... I will say if it was my daughter he could have gone to ANY country and I would have followed and taken care of it myself.......!!!!!!!
I see, i was unware that he had already been found guilty and then skipped his jail-term, inwhich case i guess it is only just that he serves his time, but there's still something niggling at me saying it just ain't right,
glockmail
09-28-2009, 08:16 AM
...
As for the cash question, it find it impossible to say what i would do in such a situation...
Since you have a "coexist" signature, its obvious to me that you would take the cash.
Since you have a "coexist" signature, its obvious to me that you would take the cash.
0.o
Whys that?
glockmail
09-28-2009, 08:29 AM
0.o
Whys that? If you're willing to "coexist" with those who want to kill you then you would be willing to take cash from a child rapist.
If you're willing to "coexist" with those who want to kill you then you would be willing to take cash from a child rapist.
Jezy Crezy man, sorry i'm not as filled with hatred and ill feeling as you are, but equating a following a religion with pedophilia/child rape is quite a leap, even for you,
jimnyc
09-28-2009, 08:34 AM
In cases like this the witness has to press charges. If the perpetrator has a lot of money he can higher a fancy lawyer and turn the case into an indictment against the victim and maybe get away with the crime, or else offer the victim money to drop the charges. Lots of folks don't want to be dragged through the mud so take the cash. What would you do?
99% of the time the victim cannot drop the charges, as they didn't press the charges. As Av stated, the state it whom brings the charges. Just as in domestic violence cases that have an abundance of proof, the victim of the abuse cannot change their minds and drop the charges. If the DA feels there is sufficient evidence to move forward, they will do so with or without the victims help.
The law is there to protect society, and the individual, from abuses. The state still has a duty to protect "society" even if the victim wants to drop charges.
glockmail
09-28-2009, 08:38 AM
Jezy Crezy man, sorry i'm not as filled with hatred and ill feeling as you are, but equating a following a religion with pedophilia/child rape is quite a leap, even for you,Nice attempt at vilifying me to deflect the argument, but the fact is that radical Islam has a stated purpose to take over Europe first, then the world. Folks that think they can coexist with radical Islam, in other words appease it, would appease a child rapist as well.
glockmail
09-28-2009, 08:40 AM
99% of the time the victim cannot drop the charges, as they didn't press the charges. As Av stated, the state it whom brings the charges. Just as in domestic violence cases that have an abundance of proof, the victim of the abuse cannot change their minds and drop the charges. If the DA feels there is sufficient evidence to move forward, they will do so with or without the victims help.
The law is there to protect society, and the individual, from abuses. The state still has a duty to protect "society" even if the victim wants to drop charges. True, but in the case of Michael Jackson, he paid his victims to STFU, and therefore the State didn't have a case.
jimnyc
09-28-2009, 08:42 AM
True, but in the case of Michael Jackson, he paid his victims to STFU, and therefore the State didn't have a case.
But they did go forward without the assistance. Unfortunately, yes, some victims think money is better than justice.
Nukeman
09-28-2009, 09:05 AM
OK I gotta ask. Why the hell is the Polish gov't is such a tizzy over this. didn't they just come out and say ALL pedophiles were to be chemicaly castrated??? and we have a statement like this form thier gov't in the defence of a FREAKING PEDOPHILE that had SEX with a 13 year old girl.....
"I am considering approaching the American authorities over the possibility of the U.S. president proclaiming an act of clemency which would settle the matter once and for all," Sikorski was quoted as saying by the PAP news agency.
Poland's film-makers' association also rose to his defence.
"We do not understand why the Swiss invited Polanski to a film festival, where he was to have received a life's achievement award, and then arrested him," said association president, Jacek Bromski.
"We regard that as a scandalous situation and an example of incomprehensible overzealousness."
So I guess the moral of the story is as long as your successful and rich you can be a pedophile, the castration is only for the lowly masses. NOT the Elite.... sounds like here in the US doesn't it!!!!!!!!!!
Nice attempt at vilifying me to deflect the argument, but the fact is that radical Islam has a stated purpose to take over Europe first, then the world. Folks that think they can coexist with radical Islam, in other words appease it, would appease a child rapist as well.
Vilifying you? You're the one saying that i appease child rape!
Ofcourse, *obviously* when i send out a message in the form of a graphic, showing that we can all as humans; Christain, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish ect ect, co-exist around eachother, and be free in what we think and believe, what i am *really* trying to say is i support pedophillia....seriously dude, wise the bap.
Please note this post is filled to bursting with sarcasm.
glockmail
09-28-2009, 12:43 PM
Vilifying you? You're the one saying that i appease child rape!
Ofcourse, *obviously* when i send out a message in the form of a graphic, showing that we can all as humans; Christain, Hindu, Muslim, Jewish ect ect, co-exist around eachother, and be free in what we think and believe, what i am *really* trying to say is i support pedophillia....seriously dude, wise the bap.
Please note this post is filled to bursting with sarcasm.
My logic for my assessment cannot be disputed, and you haven't attempted to.
My logic for my assessment cannot be disputed, and you haven't attempted to.
You're logic for assessment cannot be disputed?
erm, yes it can,
because you are saying that i support appeasing child rapists
When i know that i do not.
Unless you are trying to tell me that what i know about myself is wrong,,,
glockmail
09-28-2009, 01:12 PM
You're logic for assessment cannot be disputed?
erm, yes it can,
because you are saying that i support appeasing child rapists
When i know that i do not.
Unless you are trying to tell me that what i know about myself is wrong,,, Since you are for appeasing radical Islam, you would also be unprincipled and take cash from a child rapist instead of demanding justice.
Since you are for appeasing radical Islam, you would also be unprincipled and take cash from a child rapist instead of demanding justice.
Who says i'm appeasing radical Islam?
Normal everyday Muslim people that you meet in the street or work in your local shop and send their children to the same schools as yours are not radical Islam,
actsnoblemartin
09-28-2009, 01:24 PM
the problem is, how do you identify them, the radical from the normal
and you really cant co exist with radical islam :coffee:
the problem is, how do you identify them, the radical from the normal
and you really cant co exist with radical islam :coffee:
How can you tell christains from radical christains? or anything else for that matter?
Following the logic of 'we can't tell by looking at them if they good or not' and thus assuming you cannot co-exist with that person is plain daft,
actsnoblemartin
09-28-2009, 01:39 PM
your deflecting. and their is no GLOBAL christian conspiracy to kill or convert all non christians as their is with global jihadists
nice try
How can you tell christains from radical christains? or anything else for that matter?
Following the logic of 'we can't tell by looking at them if they good or not' and thus assuming you cannot co-exist with that person is plain daft,
actsnoblemartin
09-28-2009, 01:39 PM
How can you tell christains from radical christains? or anything else for that matter?
Following the logic of 'we can't tell by looking at them if they good or not' and thus assuming you cannot co-exist with that person is plain daft,
identify does not mean by looking at them, thats not what i meant, dont be daft :coffee:
your deflecting. and their is no GLOBAL christian conspiracy to kill or convert all non christians as their is with global jihadists
nice try
*FacePalm*
Right, lemme get this as clear as an unmudded lake, you do not think we should co-exist with Muslims because some Muslims are radicals?
avatar4321
09-28-2009, 04:06 PM
Righto, in order;
I see, my miistake for being niave on the issue, i thought that the law was there to serve the people, not the state.
Yeah. The state represents the people... I think they do it the way they do to make sure no victims get intimidated and back out.
glockmail
09-28-2009, 04:30 PM
Who says i'm appeasing radical Islam?
Normal everyday Muslim people that you meet in the street or work in your local shop and send their children to the same schools as yours are not radical Islam, You don't know if they are or not. And your "Coexist" thing doesn't have an asterisk with a corresponding footnote that says 'not radical Islamic'.
Radical Islam requires payment from non-Islamic people for the privilege of living amongst them. Or they just kill you.
You don't know if they are or not. And your "Coexist" thing doesn't have an asterisk with a corresponding footnote that says 'not radical Islamic'.
Radical Islam requires payment from non-Islamic people for the privilege of living amongst them. Or they just kill you.
Right dude, fething asterisks? You got some serious issues, i assume in your bible in Leviticus 19:18 it says "thou shalt love thy neighbour* as thyself"
*Unless thy neighbour is a radical Islamic
Its a sign for peace to all, to pervert it as you have shows much more of you than it does i,
glockmail
09-28-2009, 04:39 PM
Right dude, fething asterisks? You got some serious issues, i assume in your bible in Leviticus 19:18 it says "thou shalt love thy neighbour* as thyself"
*Unless thy neighbour is a radical Islamic
Its a sign for peace to all, to pervert it as you have shows much more of you than it does i, My bible says a lot more than just than one sentence.
My bible says a lot more than just than one sentence.
I have allot more to say about humanity than 'coexist'
glockmail
09-28-2009, 05:30 PM
I have allot more to say about humanity than 'coexist'
Yet I see no indication of that in your signature.
Yet I see no indication of that in your signature.
Indeed, i fear if i were to write all of my thoughts and feelings of life and what is around me i would have a couple of thousand words too many in my sig, i do have a book (well more like 2 and a half now) that i scribble writtings into from time to time, i'm sure i could have one of them sent you to you for you to muse over,
And so unable to go into detail in my sig i instead give one very clear, and positive message of love and peace.
glockmail
09-28-2009, 05:54 PM
Indeed, i fear if i were to write all of my thoughts and feelings of life and what is around me i would have a couple of thousand words too many in my sig, i do have a book (well more like 2 and a half now) that i scribble writtings into from time to time, i'm sure i could have one of them sent you to you for you to muse over,
And so unable to go into detail in my sig i instead give one very clear, and positive message of love and peace. Radical Islam requires payment from non-Islamic people for the privilege of living amongst them. Or they just kill you. Would you pay the tax or fight?
Radical Islam requires payment from non-Islamic people for the privilege of living amongst them. Or they just kill you. Would you pay the tax or fight?
Radical Islam will fail, as did Nazism, as did communism, as did the Roman Empire ect ect the list goes on,
You're only arguing for arguments sake, and i'm only arguing back because i think its pretty funny to hear you spout your tosh, you've called me a pedo apeaser and a terrorist supporter, all because i have a sig calling for love and peace, I Ron Ick or what?
Btw..is that you in your avitar?
glockmail
09-28-2009, 06:17 PM
Radical Islam will fail, as did Nazism, as did communism, as did the Roman Empire ect ect the list goes on,
You're only arguing for arguments sake, and i'm only arguing back because i think its pretty funny to hear you spout your tosh, you've called me a pedo apeaser and a terrorist supporter, all because i have a sig calling for love and peace, I Ron Ick or what?
Btw..is that you in your avitar? Any regime that fights against the Jews will ultimately fail. Unless, of course, people try to appease them. The question remains, will you?
No that's not me.
Any regime that fights against the Jews will ultimately fail. Unless, of course, people try to appease them. The question remains, will you?
No that's not me.
Worry not petal, i'm not apeasing anyone,
I only asked as i thought you (but it isn't you) had a strike resemblance to my local MLA Sammy Wilson
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00095/SAMMY-WILSON_95582t.jpg
chesswarsnow
09-28-2009, 08:37 PM
Sorry bout that,
1. Hey but wasnt mohammed a child rapest too?
2. Seems like I read he married a 9 year old girl.
3. I guess its easy to compare these two stories then.
4. mohammed got away with it.
5. Sick bastard!
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
09-28-2009, 08:42 PM
Sorry bout that,
You don't know if they are or not. And your "Coexist" thing doesn't have an asterisk with a corresponding footnote that says 'not radical Islamic'.
Radical Islam requires payment from non-Islamic people for the privilege of living amongst them. Or they just kill you.
1. the horan really says that folks.
2. Ransom.
3. Sick bastards!
4. Hey I didnt write it, but I have read it, and others here are smart enough to of read it it seems.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Agnapostate
09-28-2009, 09:25 PM
Are you sure you want to play that game? Wasn't Mary in her early teens when she became pregnant? :\
glockmail
09-28-2009, 09:34 PM
Are you sure you want to play that game? Wasn't Mary in her early teens when she became pregnant? :\ Why not be specific? How old were both Mary and Joseph?
chesswarsnow
09-28-2009, 09:38 PM
Sorry bout that,
Why not be specific? How old were both Mary and Joseph?
1. Hehehehe,...good one, no body knows just how old they were.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Agnapostate
09-29-2009, 02:52 AM
We'll judge according to standard custom of the time, which would have likely placed Mary in her early teens and Joseph any number of years older.
Since you are for appeasing radical Islam, you would also be unprincipled and take cash from a child rapist instead of demanding justice.
Dude.. chill the HELL OUT... nowhere in that Coexist banner does it say to coexist w/ Radicals of ANY faith...
Since you're naive on the subject, here's a quick refresher course:
"Treat others as they'd do unto you"
"Love thy enemies"
"Turn the other cheek"..
Here's what they're about:
http://coexistfoundation.net/coexistfoundation/about.htm
glockmail
09-29-2009, 07:01 AM
We'll judge according to standard custom of the time, which would have likely placed Mary in her early teens and Joseph any number of years older.
In other words, you don't have a clue.
chesswarsnow
09-29-2009, 07:26 AM
Sorry bout that,
We'll judge according to standard custom of the time, which would have likely placed Mary in her early teens and Joseph any number of years older.
1. I dont think the custom of the Jews has ever been to marry off thier children before adulthood.
2. They are always very protective of their young ones.
3. I think the heatherns allowed to marry children, not the Jews.
4. Guess what mohammed was?
5. He wasnt a Jew.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
glockmail
09-29-2009, 09:06 AM
Worry not petal, i'm not apeasing anyone,
I only asked as i thought you (but it isn't you) had a strike resemblance to my local MLA Sammy Wilson
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00095/SAMMY-WILSON_95582t.jpg
Local politicians seem to look similar, I agree. LOL
Agnapostate
09-29-2009, 01:03 PM
Apparently, you lads are a tad confused...unfortunate. It would have indeed been a standard Jewish custom for females just past biological adulthood to have been married in the period from the last century BCE to the first century, with betrothal occurring prior to that. Try again instead of babbling about something you know little about. ;)
chesswarsnow
09-29-2009, 06:55 PM
Sorry bout that,
Apparently, you lads are a tad confused...unfortunate. It would have indeed been a standard Jewish custom for females just past biological adulthood to have been married in the period from the last century BCE to the first century, with betrothal occurring prior to that. Try again instead of babbling about something you know little about. ;)
1. So you were like there, I guess, right?:laugh2:
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
@Agnapostate, Prove Mary was in her early teens, you can't.
@Glockmail & Chesswarsnow, Prove Mary was not in her early teens, you can't
/end pointless argument.
Agnapostate
09-29-2009, 08:07 PM
were like there, I guess, right?
Were you hiding in Mohammed's tent, Jimmy? I'm just pointing out that it was a standard practice for Jewish females to be married and impregnated shortly after biological adulthood in their early to mid teens and possibly betrothed prior to that in that cultural context.
chesswarsnow
09-29-2009, 08:13 PM
Sorry bout that,
Were you hiding in Mohammed's tent, Jimmy? I'm just pointing out that it was a standard practice for Jewish females to be married and impregnated shortly after biological adulthood in their early to mid teens and possibly betrothed prior to that in that cultural context.
1. Oh, so you were there, now I get it!:beer:
2. You can suppose it was common amobsnt the heatherans.
3. But not *The Jews*.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Agnapostate
09-29-2009, 09:05 PM
Try again, boy. It was certainly a standard practice among the Jews of Palestine in the first century.
*FacePalm*
http://www.millsworks.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/writing_process.gif
@Agnapostate, Prove Mary was in her early teens, you can't.
@Glockmail & Chesswarsnow, Prove Mary was not in her early teens, you can't
/end pointless argument.
Agnapostate
09-29-2009, 09:28 PM
Ah, of course. Mary was magically an exception from an established cultural tradition. ;)
chesswarsnow
09-30-2009, 07:36 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. Oh Whoopi!
2.Goldberg.
3. She stuck her nose in this now.
4. Saying Roman, didnt, "rape rape".
5. Oh like she was there as a witness.
6. What the hell is "rape rape" anyway?
7. Set against just "rape".
8. Is there another form of "rape", like "casual rape"?
9. Or, "accidental rape", perp couldnt stop himself, huh?:laugh2:
10. "Visual rape".:eek:
11. link and a sample:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/roman-polanski/6245219/Roman-Polanski-backlash-as-Whoopi-Goldberg-says-director-didnt-commit-rape-rape.html
"Whoopi Goldberg is facing a fierce backlash after saying that film director Roman Polanski didn't commit "rape-rape" when he had unlawful sex with a 13-year-old girl.
Goldberg, star of The Color Purple and Sister Act, said: "I know it wasn't rape-rape. I think it was something else, but I don't believe it was rape-rape.
"He pled guilty to having sex with a minor and he went to jail, and when they let him out he said 'You know what, this guy's going to give me 100 years in jail. I'm not staying'. And that's why he left." Polanski was arrested in Zurich, Switzerland on Sunday and faces extradition to the United States. He fled the US in 1978 before being sentenced for the crime and has been pursued around the globe by prosecutors ever since she told a grand jury that the director had plied her with champagne and drugs and taken nude pictures of her in a hot tub during a fashion shoot. Polanski then had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance and requests to be taken home, she said. "
12. So he drugged her, and liquored her up, and just *accidentally raped* her.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
glockmail
09-30-2009, 09:34 AM
Apparently, you lads are a tad confused...unfortunate. It would have indeed been a standard Jewish custom for females just past biological adulthood to have been married in the period from the last century BCE to the first century, with betrothal occurring prior to that. Try again instead of babbling about something you know little about. ;)
In other words, sexually mature young adults. Yet Mohamed was an old man and his "bride" was 9. Are these morally equivalent to you?
Agnapostate
09-30-2009, 06:24 PM
In other words, sexually mature young adults. Yet Mohamed was an old man and his "bride" was 9. Are these morally equivalent to you?
No, but Mary would have been well below the most common age of sexual consent in the U.S., which is 16, and still further below the age of majority, which is 18. I wasn't aware that you defended the morality of sexual interactions with young teenagers.
chesswarsnow
09-30-2009, 06:35 PM
Sorry bout that,
No, but Mary would have been well below the most common age of sexual consent in the U.S., which is 16, and still further below the age of majority, which is 18. I wasn't aware that you defended the morality of sexual interactions with young teenagers.
1. Moral people always do.
2. We be fuuny like that.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
glockmail
09-30-2009, 07:26 PM
No, but Mary would have been well below the most common age of sexual consent in the U.S., which is 16, and still further below the age of majority, which is 18. I wasn't aware that you defended the morality of sexual interactions with young teenagers. Back 2000 years ago infant mortality was so high and life expectancy so low that the culture required people had to start young to ensure propagation. Life expectancy at birth was around 25. The fact is that a girl who went through puberty (likely an older age then today) was expected to get married and start a family. Nothing in the New Testament suggests that Joesph was significantly older. There is no comparison with old man Mohamed's child bride no matter how much you wish and pray for one.
Agnapostate
09-30-2009, 09:42 PM
Back 2000 years ago infant mortality was so high and life expectancy so low that the culture required people had to start young to ensure propagation. Life expectancy at birth was around 25. The fact is that a girl who went through puberty (likely an older age then today) was expected to get married and start a family. Nothing in the New Testament suggests that Joesph was significantly older. There is no comparison with old man Mohamed's child bride no matter how much you wish and pray for one.
There was no dramatic difference in the levels of infant mortality and life expectancy in Arab culture 1400 years ago, which was the basis for early betrothal and marriage consummation several years after that. More than that, we don't often distinguish between the unethical nature of adult/child sexual interactions based on the age of the adult partner; there are few who would claim that a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 30 year old is more immoral than a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 50 year old, and I'd see little basis for such a claim.
theHawk
09-30-2009, 10:28 PM
There was no dramatic difference in the levels of infant mortality and life expectancy in Arab culture 1400 years ago, which was the basis for early betrothal and marriage consummation several years after that. More than that, we don't often distinguish between the unethical nature of adult/child sexual interactions based on the age of the adult partner; there are few who would claim that a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 30 year old is more immoral than a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 50 year old, and I'd see little basis for such a claim.
Muhammed married a SIX-year old girl, and started having sex with her at age 9. Not even close to 13.
But continue with your lame ass defense of pedophiles, it is quite amusing.
Agnapostate
09-30-2009, 11:41 PM
Muhammed married a SIX-year old girl, and started having sex with her at age 9. Not even close to 13.
But continue with your lame ass defense of pedophiles, it is quite amusing.
That he consummated that marriage when his bride was nine or ten doesn't seem dramatically different from the consummation of a marriage with someone who's twelve or thirteen to me, but I'm sure you have your "unique" ethical standards. ;)
Incidentally, pedophilia is a mental illness that requires clinical diagnosis; continue with your lame ass abuse of clinical terminology, it is quite amusing.
theHawk
09-30-2009, 11:52 PM
Incidentally, pedophilia is a mental illness that requires clinical diagnosis
:lol: Wrong jackass. "pedophila" is by definition the desire of an adult for a child. It requires no "clinical diagnosis". Where do you come up with this shit?
Agnapostate
10-01-2009, 12:09 AM
:lol: Wrong jackass. "pedophila" is by definition the desire of an adult for a child. It requires no "clinical diagnosis". Where do you come up with this shit?
Pedophilia, as defined by the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children that involves specific diagnostic criteria. Maybe you should cut those Prozac tablets in half next time, ducky. ;)
chesswarsnow
10-01-2009, 07:03 AM
Sorry bout that,
Back 2000 years ago infant mortality was so high and life expectancy so low that the culture required people had to start young to ensure propagation. Life expectancy at birth was around 25. The fact is that a girl who went through puberty (likely an older age then today) was expected to get married and start a family. Nothing in the New Testament suggests that Joesph was significantly older. There is no comparison with old man Mohamed's child bride no matter how much you wish and pray for one.
1. Im sure people lived longer than 25 years, you better check your facts.
2. Its even documented Jacob lived a very long time, over a hundred years.
3. So if those documented reached a ripe old age, it stands to witness, others lived long lives too.
4. Even Jesus Christ made it to 33, and was completely healthy.
5. I dont know where you got that, but saying people were expected to die at 25 is all wrong my friend.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
10-01-2009, 07:07 AM
Sorry bout that,
There was no dramatic difference in the levels of infant mortality and life expectancy in Arab culture 1400 years ago, which was the basis for early betrothal and marriage consummation several years after that. More than that, we don't often distinguish between the unethical nature of adult/child sexual interactions based on the age of the adult partner; there are few who would claim that a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 30 year old is more immoral than a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 50 year old, and I'd see little basis for such a claim.
1. If you cant see it, then you're a potenial child rapest, and a pedophile.
2. If not already.
3. Your twisted to say the least, might need to think this over.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
actsnoblemartin
10-01-2009, 07:07 AM
13 is the same as 9?
Pedophilia, as defined by the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children that involves specific diagnostic criteria. Maybe you should cut those Prozac tablets in half next time, ducky. ;)
chesswarsnow
10-01-2009, 07:13 AM
Sorry bout that,
Muhammed married a SIX-year old girl, and started having sex with her at age 9. Not even close to 13.
But continue with your lame ass defense of pedophiles, it is quite amusing.
1. Yes, the fact that this evil man took a 6 year old girl for his sex partner, goes to show, in itself, islam is evil from its roots.
2. Guilty as charged.
3. Case closed.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
10-01-2009, 07:20 AM
Sorry bout that,
That he consummated that marriage when his bride was nine or ten doesn't seem dramatically different from the consummation of a marriage with someone who's twelve or thirteen to me, but I'm sure you have your "unique" ethical standards. ;)
Incidentally, pedophilia is a mental illness that requires clinical diagnosis; continue with your lame ass abuse of clinical terminology, it is quite amusing.
1. This is hysterical, a pedophile isnt a pedophile unless he has been clinically diagnosed as being one?
2. I can hear that in a court case, some old fart, explaining he isnt a pedophile, because he wasnt ever diagnosed as one,. LOL!!!!!:laugh2:
3. You've lost your mind my friend.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
chesswarsnow
10-01-2009, 07:24 AM
Sorry bout that,
Pedophilia, as defined by the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children that involves specific diagnostic criteria. Maybe you should cut those Prozac tablets in half next time, ducky. ;)
1. Errrr, he aint crazy, if anyones suspect, its you my friend.
2. You better research that, a pedophile is a pedophile is a pedophile.
3. That pretty much covers it.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Agnapostate
10-01-2009, 07:29 AM
Don't be retarded. Pedophilia is a mental illness and paraphilia that requires fulfillment of several diagnostic criteria.
chesswarsnow
10-01-2009, 07:34 AM
Sorry bout that,
Don't be retarded. Pedophilia is a mental illness and paraphilia that requires fulfillment of several diagnostic criteria.
1. Stop mixing apples and oranges.
2. Your whole foundation is crumbling around you.
3. You need to get your head screwed on correctly.
4. Your claims are crazier than than a crazy man sitting on the floor, and smearing crap all over his head, and licking his fingers.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
theHawk
10-01-2009, 09:23 AM
Pedophilia, as defined by the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, is a prolonged sexual attraction to prepubescent children that involves specific diagnostic criteria. Maybe you should cut those Prozac tablets in half next time, ducky. ;)
link please. I cannot find any medical definition that says it "involves specific diagnostic criteria".
I'm sure they have plenty of definitions for their long list of disorders. That doesn't mean pedophila doesn't exist or didn't happen if there was no shrink to perform a mental evaluation of someone.
It doesn't take a shrink to know that when a man likes to rape children thats called child molestation/child rape/pedophila.
Since you want to use medical definitions here it is:
Pedophilia: People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). Pedophilic behavior includes undressing the child, encouraging the child to watch the abuser masturbate, touching or fondling the child's genitals and forcefully performing sexual acts on the child. Some pedophiles are sexually attracted to children only (exclusive pedophiles) and are not attracted to adults at all. Some pedophiles limit their activity to their own children or close relatives (incest), while others victimize other children. Predatory pedophiles may use force or threaten their victims if they disclose the abuse. Health care providers are legally bound to report such abuse of minors.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46415
So, by definition it is any person that has behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with children generally age 13 or younger.
Thus, if we know a man had sex with a 13 year old or younger, he is, by definition, a pedophile. There is no "diagnosis" needed. The actions make him one.
glockmail
10-01-2009, 10:56 AM
There was no dramatic difference in the levels of infant mortality and life expectancy in Arab culture 1400 years ago, which was the basis for early betrothal and marriage consummation several years after that. More than that, we don't often distinguish between the unethical nature of adult/child sexual interactions based on the age of the adult partner; there are few who would claim that a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 30 year old is more immoral than a sexual interaction between a 13 year old and a 50 year old, and I'd see little basis for such a claim. Thanks for making my point. Mohamed is reported to have stimulated himself between the thighs of his 9 year old bride before she was older, and of course he was old enough to be her father.
glockmail
10-01-2009, 11:00 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. Im sure people lived longer than 25 years, you better check your facts.
2. Its even documented Jacob lived a very long time, over a hundred years.
3. So if those documented reached a ripe old age, it stands to witness, others lived long lives too.
4. Even Jesus Christ made it to 33, and was completely healthy.
5. I dont know where you got that, but saying people were expected to die at 25 is all wrong my friend.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
No reason to apologize Sir James, as you simply misunderstood. I said: "Life expectancy at birth was around 25." and my source backs this statement up:
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/classics/gif/tab1.gif
chloe
10-01-2009, 07:58 PM
link please. I cannot find any medical definition that says it "involves specific diagnostic criteria".
I'm sure they have plenty of definitions for their long list of disorders. That doesn't mean pedophila doesn't exist or didn't happen if there was no shrink to perform a mental evaluation of someone.
It doesn't take a shrink to know that when a man likes to rape children thats called child molestation/child rape/pedophila.
Since you want to use medical definitions here it is:
Pedophilia: People with pedophilia have fantasies, urges or behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger). Pedophilic behavior includes undressing the child, encouraging the child to watch the abuser masturbate, touching or fondling the child's genitals and forcefully performing sexual acts on the child. Some pedophiles are sexually attracted to children only (exclusive pedophiles) and are not attracted to adults at all. Some pedophiles limit their activity to their own children or close relatives (incest), while others victimize other children. Predatory pedophiles may use force or threaten their victims if they disclose the abuse. Health care providers are legally bound to report such abuse of minors.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46415
So, by definition it is any person that has behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with children generally age 13 or younger.
Thus, if we know a man had sex with a 13 year old or younger, he is, by definition, a pedophile. There is no "diagnosis" needed. The actions make him one.
He's getting that definition from the American Psychiatric Association DSM book http://www.psych.org/MainMenu/Research/DSMIV.aspx
There are lots of opinions on the subject, as well as whether teenagers can rationally understand consent, I have to say that at 16 when I got married I honestly believed I knew everything in the world. However, As I grew older I matured and have many regrets. There have also been studies that suggest teenagers think differently then adults and react/respond differently because the brain is still developing. Also the brain is not fully matured until early 20's.
“The evidence now is strong that the brain does not cease
to mature until the early 20s in those relevant parts that govern
impulsivity, judgment, planning for the future, foresight of consequences,
and other characteristics that make people morally
culpable…. Indeed, age 21 or 22 would be closer to the ‘biological’
age of maturity.”10 http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/Adolescence.pdf
New neuroscience research has shown that a crucial part of the brain undergoes extensive changes during puberty -- precisely the time when the raging hormones often blamed for teen behavior begin to wreak havoc. It's long been known that the architecture of the brain is largely set in place during the first few years of life. But with the aid of new technologies such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), scientists are mapping changes in pre-teen and teenage brains and finding evidence that remarkable growth and change continue for decades.
The vast majority of brain development occurs in two basic stages: growth spurts and pruning. In utero and throughout the first several months of life, the human brain grows at a rapid and dramatic pace, producing millions of brain cells.
"This is a process that we knew happened in the womb, maybe even in the first 18 months of life," explains neuroscientist Dr. Jay Giedd at the National Institute of Mental Health. "But it was only when we started following the same children by scanning their brains at two-year intervals that we detected a second wave of overproduction."
This second wave -- occurring roughly between ages 10 and 13 -- is quickly followed by a process in which the brain prunes and organizes its neural pathways. "In many ways, it's the most tumultuous time of brain development since coming out of the womb," says Giedd.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/view/
So the 13 yr old is still a child and it was still illegal.
Agnapostate
10-02-2009, 04:51 AM
So, by definition it is any person that has behaviors that involve illegal sexual activity with children generally age 13 or younger.
Thus, if we know a man had sex with a 13 year old or younger, he is, by definition, a pedophile. There is no "diagnosis" needed. The actions make him one.
That's incorrect. While such activity is indicative of an individual meeting sufficient diagnostic criteria for pedophilia and evidence of that mental illness, it's not sufficient proof, as there are situational offenders who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, just as there are prison rapists who cannot be accurately described as homosexual. Similarly, there are many pedophiles who are not sex offenders and are thus not in the clinical or correctional population, contrary to the popular misconception that the term "pedophile" is synonymous with "statutory rapist" or "child sexual abuser."
Thanks for making my point. Mohamed is reported to have stimulated himself between the thighs of his 9 year old bride before she was older, and of course he was old enough to be her father.
I've never condoned the nature of marriage in any fundamentalist religious society; I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of those who would condemn that practice (usually as a wider element of expressing absurd geopolitical views regarding Islam), while ignoring the fact that Mary was likely a young teenager at the time of her wedding to Joseph (and younger still at the time of betrothal), while Joseph was likely significantly older and probably also old enough to be her father, as he is not mentioned in the later life of Jesus, indicating that his death occurred some time between Jesus's activity in Jerusalem at the age of 12 and the beginning of his ministry at age 30.
theHawk
10-02-2009, 07:22 AM
That's incorrect. While such activity is indicative of an individual meeting sufficient diagnostic criteria for pedophilia and evidence of that mental illness, it's not sufficient proof, as there are situational offenders who do not meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, just as there are prison rapists who cannot be accurately described as homosexual. Similarly, there are many pedophiles who are not sex offenders and are thus not in the clinical or correctional population, contrary to the popular misconception that the term "pedophile" is synonymous with "statutory rapist" or "child sexual abuser."
Wow, your defense has come down to saying that a man who willingly engage in homosexual activity isn't a homosexual. Keep telling yourself that bub. :gay:
chesswarsnow
10-02-2009, 07:40 AM
Sorry bout that,
Wow, your defense has come down to saying that a man who willingly engage in homosexual activity isn't a homosexual. Keep telling yourself that bub. :gay:
1. Yeah a homo is a homo, and a pedophile is a pedophile, whats so hard to understand?
2. If you want sex with the same sex, your a homo.
3. If you want sex with a child, you're a pedophile.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Agnapostate
10-02-2009, 07:48 AM
Wow, your defense has come down to saying that a man who willingly engage in homosexual activity isn't a homosexual. Keep telling yourself that bub. :gay:
I don't care what kind of faggotry you're picking up from NARTH's website; it's a known fact that prison rape is caused by the limitations of environmental surroundings rather than a legitimate homosexual orientation. Try that one again, sparky. :slap:
theHawk
10-02-2009, 08:58 AM
Sorry bout that,
1. Yeah a homo is a homo, and a pedophile is a pedophile, whats so hard to understand?
2. If you want sex with the same sex, your a homo.
3. If you want sex with a child, you're a pedophile.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Well, he is an apologist, and has to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.
theHawk
10-02-2009, 09:02 AM
I don't care what kind of faggotry you're picking up from NARTH's website;
Don't even know what "NARTH" is. Don't think i want to know. :laugh2:
it's a known fact that prison rape is caused by the limitations of environmental surroundings rather than a legitimate homosexual orientation. Try that one again, sparky. :slap:
So if its caused by the limitations of environmental surroundings then everyone in that environment must willingly engage in that behavior. You must have some good prison stories!
Agnapostate
10-02-2009, 09:55 AM
So if its caused by the limitations of environmental surroundings then everyone in that environment must willingly engage in that behavior. You must have some good prison stories!
Try not to be such an idiot. Due to the widely varying spectrum of human behaviors and experiences, different inmates will of course have different reactions to those environmental limitations.
theHawk
10-02-2009, 10:40 AM
Due to the widely varying spectrum of human behaviors and experiences, different inmates will of course have different reactions to those environmental limitations.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Different inmates will have different reactions to their prison environment, due to their upbringing and life experiences. NO SHIT. But it doesn't change the fact that every grown man is responsible for his own actions, even in prison. It doesn't change the fact that if a grown man engages in homosexual behavior he is a homosexual, not matter what his "environment" is.
You're quite the apologist. Men who have sex with young girls aren't pedophiles. Men who have sex with men in prisons aren't homosexual. You've presented quite a case, but you cannot change the dictionary meaning of words in the English language.
glockmail
10-05-2009, 11:02 AM
.....
I've never condoned the nature of marriage in any fundamentalist religious society; I'm merely pointing out the inconsistency of those who would condemn that practice (usually as a wider element of expressing absurd geopolitical views regarding Islam), while ignoring the fact that Mary was likely a young teenager at the time of her wedding to Joseph (and younger still at the time of betrothal), while Joseph was likely significantly older and probably also old enough to be her father, as he is not mentioned in the later life of Jesus, indicating that his death occurred some time between Jesus's activity in Jerusalem at the age of 12 and the beginning of his ministry at age 30.
Again you have no basis for these accusations.
chesswarsnow
10-05-2009, 07:28 PM
Sorry bout that,
I don't care what kind of faggotry you're picking up from NARTH's website; it's a known fact that prison rape is caused by the limitations of environmental surroundings rather than a legitimate homosexual orientation. Try that one again, sparky. :slap:
1. I hate to ask the obvious, but were you in prison for a stint before?
2. That would explain a lot, if so.
3. There are plenty of men and women who dont turn homo in prison.
4. If you had a homo experiance, while locked up, and want to claim it wasn't your fault, and you didnt have a choice, I anit buying it.
5. Now I dont think you ever were in prison, but it could of happened.
6. I think if you or another person was rapped, in prison, and you kinda liked it, you might want to try it again, out of boredom.
7. But when you or the other person was released, you would go straight, just for arguements sake.
8. But I dont think you just go automatic homo when put into prison.
Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.