Roman Polanski: 'Everyone else fancies little girls too'
Rusty Trombone
extraordinary interview Polanski gave to the novelist Martin Amis in
1979, the year after Polanski went on the run.
The interview originally appeared in Tatler and is collected in Amis’s
excellent book Visiting Mrs Nabokov.
Here’s a section of the first quote it contains from Polanski.
“If I had killed somebody, it wouldn’t have had so much appeal to the
press, you see? But… fucking, you see, and the young girls. Judges
want to fuck young girls. Juries want to fuck young girls. Everyone
wants to fuckyoung girls!”
Thirty years have passed since Polanski said those words, so he’s had
time to reconsider them. Whether he’s actually done so, we don’t yet
know. Perhaps he still thinks it’s true that everyone fancies little
girls, and that the press was exaggerating the enormity of his crime,
and that all this somehow excuses his behaviour.
Later in the interview, Polanski says he likes Paris, to which he’d
fled, because it’s “very grown-up”.
Unlike the 13-year-old girl with whom he admitted having unlawful sex.
Chucky
You misquoted. "young girls" <> "little girls" Why did you do that?
--
Chucky
Chucky
<papami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>x-no-archive:
>On Sep 29, 2:50 pm, Chucky <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
>> You misquoted. "young girls" <> "little girls" Why did you do that?
>
>I'll take a stab... Because 13 year old girls are little girls.
>Does the term "little girl" make you uncomfortable?
>How about "young woman"? Doest that make it sound better?
>Would you have made an issue of him writing "young woman" the way you
>have over him writing "little girl?
I'm sure that few 13-year-old girls would like to be called "little
girls." If you call them that, what are you going to call
pre-pubescents? They are clearly quite different animals. ;->
--
Chucky
Morton Davis
"Chucky" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:1f86c517qsgi97kpg...@4ax.com...
Tim McGaughy
that's because she's tired of the whole thing, not because she thinks he
doesn't deserve punishment.
If she thought it was all good, she wouldn't have sued him.
alt.support.boy-lovers removed from newsgroup list.
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
news:OsOdnXSjhLWoNV7X...@posted.toastnet...
The point is, she wants the whole thing dropped, and her wishes ought to be
paramount, imo. She filed to have the charges dropped. The US Justice system
will survive without pursuing Polanski to his grave.
> If she thought it was all good, she wouldn't have sued him.
She has received a settlement since then, and now is obviously satisfied,
and desperately wants the whole matter to go away.
> alt.support.boy-lovers removed from newsgroup list.
Good move..
Its refreshing to see you expressing some opinions instead of barking
impertinent questions. I knew there was hope for you.
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:OsOdnXSjhLWoNV7X...@posted.toastnet...
>> Morton Davis wrote:
>>> "Chucky" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1f86c517qsgi97kpg...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:14:25 -0700 (PDT), "Brain (Ralph) Kelly"
>>>> <papami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> x-no-archive:
>>>>> On Sep 29, 2:50 pm, Chucky <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You misquoted. "young girls" <> "little girls" Why did you do that?
>>>>> I'll take a stab... Because 13 year old girls are little girls.
>>>>> Does the term "little girl" make you uncomfortable?
>>>>> How about "young woman"? Doest that make it sound better?
>>>>> Would you have made an issue of him writing "young woman" the way you
>>>>> have over him writing "little girl?
>>>> I'm sure that few 13-year-old girls would like to be called "little
>>>> girls." If you call them that, what are you going to call
>>>> pre-pubescents? They are clearly quite different animals. ;->
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The outrage is stupid. Even his victim doesn't want him punished.
>>
>> that's because she's tired of the whole thing, not because she thinks
>> he doesn't deserve punishment.
>
> The point is, she wants the whole thing dropped, and her wishes ought to
> be paramount,
No. In certain cases, the courts take over regardless of what the victim
wants. That's a good thing, considering that one can never know whether
the multimillionaire film maker is putting pressure on the victim.
It's a done deal, anyway. He's on the run from a CONVICTION, not from
charges, and that takes it entirely out of her hands.
> system will survive without pursuing Polanski to his grave.
I actually happen to have a girl who will be 13 all too soon, and quite
frankly, if someone fucks her at that point, the law hunting him will be
the least of his worries. I'd make sure the law hunted him to SEVERAL
gravesites scattered across this state. I'm a little puzzled why you
wouldn't feel the same way.
>> If she thought it was all good, she wouldn't have sued him.
>
> She has received a settlement since then, and now is obviously
> satisfied, and desperately wants the whole matter to go away.
She is not the court that sentenced him. This is not her problem.
> Its refreshing to see you expressing some opinions instead of barking
> impertinent questions. I knew there was hope for you.
You'll find that when you don't make ludicrous statements, the questions
asking you to support your opinions won't be so annoying.
Dutch
Yes, in certain cases I agree, not this one.
That's a good thing, considering that one can never know whether
> the multimillionaire film maker is putting pressure on the victim.
That is clearly not the case here, the perpetrator and the victim have
reached a settlement. This victim is being re-victimized decades after a
crime she just wants to forget.
> It's a done deal, anyway. He's on the run from a CONVICTION, not from
> charges, and that takes it entirely out of her hands.
Of course they can do what they like now, if it were only charges she could
just refuse to cooperate.
>
>> system will survive without pursuing Polanski to his grave.
>
> I actually happen to have a girl who will be 13 all too soon, and quite
> frankly, if someone fucks her at that point, the law hunting him will be
> the least of his worries.
Your understandable desire for retribution is also less important than the
wishes of the victim, imo.
I'd make sure the law hunted him to SEVERAL
> gravesites scattered across this state. I'm a little puzzled why you
> wouldn't feel the same way.
A couple of reasons, foremost is as I said, the fervent wishes of this woman
should be held above all other considerations. Second, I believe in
redemption before vengance. Polanski made a terrible mistake, settled with
the aggrieved party and has has lived an exemplary life since.
>
>>> If she thought it was all good, she wouldn't have sued him.
>>
>> She has received a settlement since then, and now is obviously satisfied,
>> and desperately wants the whole matter to go away.
>
> She is not the court that sentenced him. This is not her problem.
Unfortunately it is her problem, because of her connection to the case.
>> Its refreshing to see you expressing some opinions instead of barking
>> impertinent questions. I knew there was hope for you.
>
> You'll find that when you don't make ludicrous statements, the questions
> asking you to support your opinions won't be so annoying.
I didn't make any ludicrous statement, I made a broad statement, you
questioned it and I presented you with an opportunity to see that you agree
with it. Instead of responding in the context of the issue you decided to
turn it into a pissing contest.
Morton Davis
Of course you'll feel that way if it's a 12 year old boy who screws her, eh?
Or you catch one of her girlfriends eating her out?
Fred B. Brown
"Brain (Ralph) Kelly" <papami...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34db7ec1-513b-4abd...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Does the term "little girl" make you uncomfortable?
> How about "young woman"? Doest that make it sound better?
> Would you have made an issue of him writing "young woman" the way you
> have over him writing "little girl?
13 year olds are adolescents, no longer "little girls". They have passed
puberty
and are developing into adults. Their bodies are sexually mature and they
are
capable of bearing children. So don't call them "little girls." 100 years
ago it
was common for girls that age to marry.
Indubitally
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:FPOwm.11256$ma7....@newsfe04.iad...
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:OsOdnXSjhLWoNV7X...@posted.toastnet...
>> Morton Davis wrote:
>>> "Chucky" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1f86c517qsgi97kpg...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:14:25 -0700 (PDT), "Brain (Ralph) Kelly"
>>>> <papami...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> x-no-archive:
>>>>> On Sep 29, 2:50 pm, Chucky <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
>>>>>> You misquoted. "young girls" <> "little girls" Why did you do that?
>>>>> I'll take a stab... Because 13 year old girls are little girls.
>>>>> Does the term "little girl" make you uncomfortable?
>>>>> How about "young woman"? Doest that make it sound better?
>>>>> Would you have made an issue of him writing "young woman" the way you
>>>>> have over him writing "little girl?
>>>> I'm sure that few 13-year-old girls would like to be called "little
>>>> girls." If you call them that, what are you going to call
>>>> pre-pubescents? They are clearly quite different animals. ;->
>>>>
>>>>
>>> The outrage is stupid. Even his victim doesn't want him punished.
How the victim feels about the matter years later do not in this case affect
te crime commited ot how the law should address the matter.
Only reason seems to be that he has been a successful so presumably talented
in his field.
However the law is for all, whether a talented playwright, a talented
plumber or talented banker, is the law going to be different for those not
quite so talented in the same field?
Indubitally
"Fred B. Brown" <fredb...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:4ac495a0$0$261$bb4e...@newscene.com...
3yrs and mussys marry them at 8. It is against the law that i fully support.
Put the dick in jail.
>
Morton Davis
"Indubitally" <i...@home.com> wrote in message
news:cskxm.44733$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
So Doolittle Lynn was a Jew coal miner from Kentucky when he married 13 year
old Loretta Webb, eh? And Mexico and Venezuela are predominately Muslim or
Jewish, eh?
thedarkman
- of distributing photographs of boys and girls taken in a nursery.
The leader - unusually - was a woman. There was obviously touching of
the genitalia - which in Britain constitutes indecent assault, but no
suggestion of rape, sodomy or oral sex and no admission of noxious
substances.
Apart from the age and number of the victims, how is Polanski's crime
less heinous?
Brian E. Clark
@x37g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, papami...@gmail.com
says...
> > That is a fairly recent development since he made her
> > a millionairess isn't it?
>
> Whoda thunk it?
> Isn't that kinda like uh buying off the witness? Himm...
There can be no buying off of witnesses, because there will
be no trial for the attack itself. Polanski has already
pleaded guilty to having unlawful sex with a minor.
The money the victim received came from out-of-court
settlement, after she brought a civil suit against
Polanski.
> She's raising three kids, right? Himm...
Polanski is already legally guilty by his own admission,
and he still faces punishment for failing to appear in
court for sentencing. How can the victim profit from this
in any way?
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Tim McGaughy
He broke the law. Then he fled, breaking the law again.
But okay, I can see why you'd want to let a 40 year old man fuck a 13
year old. Wait, no I don't. You'll have to explain it to me.
> That's a good thing, considering that one can never know whether
>> the multimillionaire film maker is putting pressure on the victim.
>
> That is clearly not the case here, the perpetrator and the victim have
> reached a settlement.
Which, as it turns out, has never been paid.
>> I actually happen to have a girl who will be 13 all too soon, and
>> quite frankly, if someone fucks her at that point, the law hunting him
>> will be the least of his worries.
>
> Your understandable desire for retribution is also less important than
> the wishes of the victim, imo.
Your desire to let 40 year old men fuck 13 year old children isn't quite
so understandable. Unless you have some urges you want to tell us about?
> I'd make sure the law hunted him to SEVERAL
>> gravesites scattered across this state. I'm a little puzzled why you
>> wouldn't feel the same way.
>
> A couple of reasons, foremost is as I said, the fervent wishes of this
> woman should be held above all other considerations. Second, I believe
> in redemption before vengance. Polanski made a terrible mistake, settled
> with the aggrieved party and has has lived an exemplary life since.
Has not settled. He's apparently not paid at all on the lawsuit judgement.
>>>> If she thought it was all good, she wouldn't have sued him.
>>>
>>> She has received a settlement since then,
No.
>> She is not the court that sentenced him. This is not her problem.
>
> Unfortunately it is her problem, because of her connection to the case.
She is not required to be involved in a case he's already pled guilty
to. She is further not involved at all in the additional charges of
fleeing from the courts before sentencing.
>
>>> Its refreshing to see you expressing some opinions instead of barking
>>> impertinent questions. I knew there was hope for you.
>>
>> You'll find that when you don't make ludicrous statements, the
>> questions asking you to support your opinions won't be so annoying.
>
> I didn't make any ludicrous statement,
You stated that humans are special. I asked why. You answered,
essentially, "Because."
Morton Davis
Maybe you missed it when they let a 44 year old man MARRY A 14 YEAR OLD
GIRL? Maybe you missed it when 21 year old Doolittle Lynn married 13 year
old Loretta Webb? In many countries 13 is legal age.
Tim McGaughy
In many countries, it's not. The U.S., for example.
Dutch
> Dutch wrote:
[..]
>>>> Its refreshing to see you expressing some opinions instead of barking
>>>> impertinent questions. I knew there was hope for you.
>>>
>>> You'll find that when you don't make ludicrous statements, the questions
>>> asking you to support your opinions won't be so annoying.
>>
>> I didn't make any ludicrous statement,
>
> You stated that humans are special. I asked why. You answered,
> essentially, "Because."
No, I did not answer "because", my answer was detailed and multi-faceted,
including references to an author on the subject of speciesim, which you
likely had never heard of.. You just decided to turn it into a pissing
contest because you realized that you were out of your depth and being
impertinent was your best hope of saving face.
Tim McGaughy
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
>
> [..]
>>>>> Its refreshing to see you expressing some opinions instead of
>>>>> barking impertinent questions. I knew there was hope for you.
>>>>
>>>> You'll find that when you don't make ludicrous statements, the
>>>> questions asking you to support your opinions won't be so annoying.
>>>
>>> I didn't make any ludicrous statement,
>>
>> You stated that humans are special. I asked why. You answered,
>> essentially, "Because."
>
> No, I did not answer "because", my answer was detailed and
> multi-faceted,
You did not answer, quote, "Because we can ask that question"?
Puck Greenman
In the UK, it was legal, as late as the 1930s
In the USA, in some states, it was legal up to the 1970s, Arkansas was one, I believe.
IIRC In most countries where there was no specified legal age, muslim countries included,
intercourse was usually forbidden until she had her first menstruation.
That first menstruation being the natural indicator that she was a "woman", and able to
breed.
Dutch
That was my initial response, which was one part of my answer, it contains
essentially all the information you need to understand why humans are
special because it illustrates the cognitive powers of humans. It says far
more than "because". You expected something different? Fine, sorry to
disappoint you, but it's not a simple idea to articulate. I had hoped to
convey it by illustrating the speciesism in your replies to a couple of
questions. You were uncooperative, for reasons known only to you. I
followed subsequently with more information. Note again, "species" and
"special", same root.
The fact is, your question appeared to me to be a troll. That is why I did
not spend the time going into detail right off. I tested your genuine
interest in the topic by asking a simple question, which you dodged. That
told me all I needed to know, you were and still are playing a childish
gotcha pissing contest, you had no interest at all in discussing speciesism,
you likely have never heard of it. If you were being authentic you would
have framed the question differently. If you were interested in anything
beyond this little game you would have Googled speciesism when I introduced
the word to you for the first time and you would have discovered
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism or
http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/species.htm or go here
http://tinyurl.com/ykvzxq8 and bring up page 59 of the Animal Rights Debate.
Dutch
news:sqobd5lgqacta3i6a...@4ax.com...
The point I was making is that the victim is asking for the matter to be
dropped. I believe that in this case her wishes should be respected.
Tim McGaughy
There are many countries where slavery was once legal. What's your point?
The fact remains that the laws have been amended to protect young teens
from sexual abuse. And Polanski broke one of those laws.
> In the USA, in some states, it was legal up to the 1970s, Arkansas was one, I believe.
I'd be willing to bet you are mistaken. There's a difference between
marriage and what Polanski did. He had zero intention of supporting her
via marriage once he was finished with her, and I'm pretty sure that sex
outside of marriage with an underage teen was still illegal in Arkansas.
Puck Greenman
Non sequitur.
Tim McGaughy
Your new word for the day is 'analogy'. The point is that it does not
matter what was once legal, and that 'it used to be legal' is not an
acceptable excuse.
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote in message
> news:zqednb_3g8ibE0jX...@posted.toastnet...
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>> [..]
>>>>>>> Its refreshing to see you expressing some opinions instead of
>>>>>>> barking impertinent questions. I knew there was hope for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'll find that when you don't make ludicrous statements, the
>>>>>> questions asking you to support your opinions won't be so annoying.
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't make any ludicrous statement,
>>>>
>>>> You stated that humans are special. I asked why. You answered,
>>>> essentially, "Because."
>>>
>>> No, I did not answer "because", my answer was detailed and
>>> multi-faceted,
>>
>> You did not answer, quote, "Because we can ask that question"?
>
> That was my initial response, which was one part of my answer,
Until I began asking questions, it was your ONLY answer, and you seemed
satisfied with it.
> contains essentially all the information you need to understand why
> humans are special because it illustrates the cognitive powers of
> humans.
Then you argue that other animals do not have cognitive abilities?
Seriously?
> different? Fine, sorry to disappoint you, but it's not a simple idea to
> articulate. I had hoped to convey it by illustrating the speciesism in
> your replies to a couple of questions.
How would demonstrating 'speciesism' on my part establish that humans
are special? At best, even if you could demonstrate that I thought
humans were special, that is all you'd prove: That I THOUGHT humans are
special, not that we actually are.
> You were uncooperative, for
> reasons known only to you.
I told you my reasons. I wanted to know the rationale behind your
position. I already know the rationale for the positions I hold, and
it's irrelevant to the discussion.
> I followed subsequently with more
> information. Note again, "species" and "special", same root.
Are you at all literate?
Specialis, from which special is derived, actually had a connection with
the word species, but the word special has a sufficiently different
meaning these days that species is not even mentioned in its definitions.
The word species itself once did not mean the same thing it means today.
The scientific grouping of animals is a relatively recent definition. In
the 1500s, it meant 'appearance' or 'sort'.
> discussing speciesism, you likely have never heard of it. If you were
> being authentic you would have framed the question differently. If you
> were interested in anything beyond this little game you would have
> Googled speciesism when I introduced the word to you for the first time
> and you would have discovered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism or
> http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/species.htm or go here
> http://tinyurl.com/ykvzxq8 and bring up page 59 of the Animal Rights
> Debate.
By this argument, the fact that there are racists should prove that
races are 'special'.
Is this really your argument?
Morton Davis
What YOU do not understand is that it is legal in much of the world. And
it's still legal in parts of America where the legal age can be as young as
14 even today. In the past Age of Consent was based upon reaching puberty -
not some moron fucktard legislator's fake morals.
Morton Davis
Is that yours? We're all descended from the last 30 breeding age females
left alive in AFRICA during the ice age of 30,000 years ago. We're all
related. We're all descended from African stock. Racism exists because some
people are just plain born scumbag motherfuckers who don't deserve to live
and should be shot on sight. Unfortunately, the laws won't let us.
Puck Greenman
Stray man distraction.
Dutch
>>> You did not answer, quote, "Because we can ask that question"?
>>
>> That was my initial response, which was one part of my answer,
>
> Until I began asking questions, it was your ONLY answer, and you seemed
> satisfied with it.
You seem to be forgetting that I responded by asking you a simple yes or no
question, your response would have advanced the communication. Instead of
accepting the challenge you dodged.
>> contains essentially all the information you need to understand why
>> humans are special because it illustrates the cognitive powers of humans.
>
> Then you argue that other animals do not have cognitive abilities?
>
> Seriously?
I can't believe that a person of your apparent intellect could conclude that
from what I just said. Again I can only surmise that you're trolling or
trying to "score". My contention is that humans possess *extraordinary*
cognitive capacities, particularly relative to 99.9999% of other species.
>> different? Fine, sorry to disappoint you, but it's not a simple idea to
>> articulate. I had hoped to convey it by illustrating the speciesism in
>> your replies to a couple of questions.
>
> How would demonstrating 'speciesism' on my part establish that humans are
> special? At best, even if you could demonstrate that I thought humans were
> special, that is all you'd prove: That I THOUGHT humans are special, not
> that we actually are.
There is no "actually are". Special is a subjective concept which does not
contain in itself any specific information. It's a value judgment, not a
descriptive adjective. The word communicates an idea within a particular
context. As was already stipulated, gorillas are also "special", so are
ants, and bees, even house flies, depending on how you apply the word. So
the word should not be the cause for a raging debate, it should be the
impetus for a continuing communication. It just so happens that this complex
communication which we are engaged is an illustration of the advanced
cognitive and communication capacities of humans, as I said in my first
reply.
> > You were uncooperative, for
>> reasons known only to you.
>
> I told you my reasons. I wanted to know the rationale behind your
> position.
And I have provided links to Cohen's work among others. The Case for
Speciesisim.
> I already know the rationale for the positions I hold, and it's irrelevant
> to the discussion.
I want to know about that position you hold and what the rationale for it
is. It appears, given the little information you have provided, to be not
very well thought out. If you want to read a little more on the subject of
speciesism and let me know later I would be interested.
[..]
>> discussing speciesism, you likely have never heard of it. If you were
>> being authentic you would have framed the question differently. If you
>> were interested in anything beyond this little game you would have
>> Googled speciesism when I introduced the word to you for the first time
>> and you would have discovered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciesism or
>> http://www.hughlafollette.com/papers/species.htm or go here
>> http://tinyurl.com/ykvzxq8 and bring up page 59 of the Animal Rights
>> Debate.
>
> By this argument, the fact that there are racists should prove that races
> are 'special'.
>
> Is this really your argument?
You astound me with these non sequiturs. The links above were intended to be
a source of information, so you can better understand the arguments in
defense of speciesism. Did you even read any of the arguments? I didn't look
them up simply to demonstrate that there are people who argue in favour of
speciesism. Please read them carefully, in fact check "Regan vs Cohen" out
of your local library and read it. That's what I did when the concept was
first introduced to me a few years ago.
The fact that you are attempting to connect speciesism and racism
demonstrates that you have not given this matter sufficient thought. I
expect such arguments from animal rights wing nuts, not from normal
intelligent people. Just because the two words are of the same form and
describe a type of discrimination, that does not mean necessarily or by
default that both are unjust or unfair. Racism and sexism are wrong because
the differences claimed by supporters are falsehoods. The differences
perceived between species by and large are not falsehoods, notwithstanding
the many misconceptions that have historically existed. Indeed,
discrimination, in and of itself, is the definitive good_thing. If one
examines closely the notion that one should not discriminate based on
species then our entire world view comes directly into question, our very
existence. We could never spray for pests or weeds in agriculture for fear
of harming grasshoppers or mice, much less raise animals for food or employ
animals in medical research. Species tells us everything relevant about a
particular animal in one brief moment.
If I seemed reluctant to make my case at first, you really did appear to be
just looking for an argument. I apologize if that is not the case.
Tim McGaughy
I understand that quite well. What YOU do not understand is that 'legal
in much of the world' does not excuse one's behavior in the United
States, nor does it mean that one's behavior is moral or ethical even in
the countries where it is legal.
> And
> it's still legal in parts of America where the legal age can be as young as
> 14 even today.
For marriage, not for casual sex. It's not even legal for marriage these
days.
Tim McGaughy
Learn how to spell 'straw' and then get back to me. Then I'll explain to
you that a 'straw man' is a misrepresentation of an opponent's position
in a debate, not an analogy.
Morton Davis
Sez you. It used to be legal here before the morons decided it shouldn't be.
>
>> And it's still legal in parts of America where the legal age can be as
>> young as 14 even today.
>
> For marriage, not for casual sex. It's not even legal for marriage these
> days.
Guess you missed it when that 44 year old soccer coach married the 14 year
old recently, eh? It is legal with parental consent.
Tim McGaughy
'Used to be'. And there are valid reasons it's not legal now.
>>> And it's still legal in parts of America where the legal age can be as
>>> young as 14 even today.
>> For marriage, not for casual sex. It's not even legal for marriage these
>> days.
>
> Guess you missed it when that 44 year old soccer coach married the 14 year
> old recently, eh? It is legal with parental consent.
Cite?
Tim McGaughy
Take it far enough back, and we're all descended from the same ancestors
of dogs, cows, rats, birds, etc.
Tim McGaughy
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>> Dutch wrote:
> [..]
>
>>>> You did not answer, quote, "Because we can ask that question"?
>>>
>>> That was my initial response, which was one part of my answer,
>>
>> Until I began asking questions, it was your ONLY answer, and you
>> seemed satisfied with it.
>
> You seem to be forgetting that I responded by asking you a simple yes or
> no question,
The question was irrelevant. If your argument depends on what actions I
take during the course of a meal, your argument is severely flawed.
>> Then you argue that other animals do not have cognitive abilities?
>>
>> Seriously?
>
> I can't believe that a person of your apparent intellect could conclude
> that from what I just said.
Then you do not argue that humans are special because of our cognitive
abilities?
>>> different? Fine, sorry to disappoint you, but it's not a simple idea
>>> to articulate. I had hoped to convey it by illustrating the
>>> speciesism in your replies to a couple of questions.
>>
>> How would demonstrating 'speciesism' on my part establish that humans
>> are special? At best, even if you could demonstrate that I thought
>> humans were special, that is all you'd prove: That I THOUGHT humans
>> are special, not that we actually are.
>
> There is no "actually are".
Then you do not argue that humans are special?
> Special is a subjective concept which does
> not contain in itself any specific information.
Then you were simply babbling?
>> > You were uncooperative, for
>>> reasons known only to you.
>>
>> I told you my reasons. I wanted to know the rationale behind your
>> position.
>
> And I have provided links to Cohen's work among others. The Case for
> Speciesisim.
Argument from authority. What parts of Cohen's work specifically do you
feel justifies your position?
>> I already know the rationale for the positions I hold, and it's
>> irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> I want to know about that position you hold and what the rationale for
> it is.
Get used to disappointment.
> The fact that you are attempting to connect speciesism and racism
> demonstrates that you have not given this matter sufficient thought.
They're different degrees of the same thing.
> expect such arguments from animal rights wing nuts, not from normal
> intelligent people. Just because the two words are of the same form and
> describe a type of discrimination, that does not mean necessarily or by
> default that both are unjust or unfair.
Where did I say they were?
> Racism and sexism are wrong
> because the differences claimed by supporters are falsehoods.
Then you claim there are no differences?
> differences perceived between species by and large are not falsehoods,
You yourself expressed a falsehood in a different thread. The idea that
only humans are capable of abstract thought. I'm sure you have plenty of
other falsehoods floating around in that brain of yours.
Geode
> Morton Davis wrote:
> > "Chucky" <m...@privacy.com> wrote in message
> >news:1f86c517qsgi97kpg...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 16:14:25 -0700 (PDT), "Brain (Ralph) Kelly"
> >> <papamikey...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> x-no-archive:
> >>> On Sep 29, 2:50 pm, Chucky <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >>>> You misquoted. "young girls" <> "little girls" Why did you do that?
> >>> I'll take a stab... Because 13 year old girls are little girls.
> >>> Does the term "little girl" make you uncomfortable?
> >>> How about "young woman"? Doest that make it sound better?
> >>> Would you have made an issue of him writing "young woman" the way you
> >>> have over him writing "little girl?
> >> I'm sure that few 13-year-old girls would like to be called "little
> >> girls." If you call them that, what are you going to call
> >> pre-pubescents? They are clearly quite different animals. ;->
>
> > The outrage is stupid. Even his victim doesn't want him punished.
>
> that's because she's tired of the whole thing, not because she thinks he
> doesn't deserve punishment.
>
>
perhaps she sued under pressures from her mum, who wanted to extract a
big compensation from a supposed rich director. Where was his mum who
let his daughter go to a party in Hollywood? I suppose she try to
extort money from him, and after failing she reported top the police.
John
Geode
> "Brain (Ralph) Kelly" <papamikey...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:34db7ec1-513b-4abd...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > x-no-archive:
> > On Sep 29, 2:50 pm, Chucky <m...@privacy.com> wrote:
> >> You misquoted. "young girls" <> "little girls" Why did you do that?
>
> > I'll take a stab... Because 13 year old girls are little girls.
> > Does the term "little girl" make you uncomfortable?
> > How about "young woman"? Doest that make it sound better?
> > Would you have made an issue of him writing "young woman" the way you
> > have over him writing "little girl?
>
> puberty
> and are developing into adults. Their bodies are sexually mature and they
> are
> capable of bearing children. So don't call them "little girls." 100 years
> ago it
> was common for girls that age to marry.
and even 12 year old girls were marrying in times that Christian
authorities made most of the laws.
John Gillmoore
Brian E. Clark
> And it's still legal in parts of America where the legal age can
> be as young as 14 even today.
It is not, nor has it ever been, legal to stupefy a 13-
year-old by plying her with drugs and alcohol, then to
force her to undergo oral, anal, and vaginal sex, against
her repeated wishes to stop.
All this tripe you keep flinging about young marriage is
utterly beside the point.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Tim McGaughy
It wasn't a party, it was a photo shoot for a magazine. And her mom had
already gotten pissed off about an earlier shoot where he'd taken
pictures she thought were too revealing.
Anjelica Huston was also in the house at the time, which probably is why
she thought nothing would happen the second time.
Dutch
"Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote i
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>> Dutch wrote:
>> [..]
>>
>>>>> You did not answer, quote, "Because we can ask that question"?
>>>>
>>>> That was my initial response, which was one part of my answer,
>>>
>>> Until I began asking questions, it was your ONLY answer, and you seemed
>>> satisfied with it.
>>
>> You seem to be forgetting that I responded by asking you a simple yes or
>> no question,
>
> The question was irrelevant. If your argument depends on what actions I
> take during the course of a meal, your argument is severely flawed.
By asking the question I am demonstrating that you don't consider some
animals to be "special", that is unless you consider tasting good to be a
valid determinant for "specialness".
>>> Then you argue that other animals do not have cognitive abilities?
>>>
>>> Seriously?
>>
>> I can't believe that a person of your apparent intellect could conclude
>> that from what I just said.
>
> Then you do not argue that humans are special because of our cognitive
> abilities?
Apparently in your mind cognitive abilities are something that one either
has or not, like wings. Are YOU serious?
>
>>>> different? Fine, sorry to disappoint you, but it's not a simple idea to
>>>> articulate. I had hoped to convey it by illustrating the speciesism in
>>>> your replies to a couple of questions.
>>>
>>> How would demonstrating 'speciesism' on my part establish that humans
>>> are special? At best, even if you could demonstrate that I thought
>>> humans were special, that is all you'd prove: That I THOUGHT humans are
>>> special, not that we actually are.
>>
>> There is no "actually are".
>
> Then you do not argue that humans are special?
I believe that humans are special, and so do you. It's an abstract concept,
so "it" does actually exist.
>> Special is a subjective concept which does not contain in itself any
>> specific information.
>
> Then you were simply babbling?
No, I was expressing an opinion on a complex subject. Your hand waving and
other attempts to muddy the waters unconstructive.
>
>>> > You were uncooperative, for
>>>> reasons known only to you.
>>>
>>> I told you my reasons. I wanted to know the rationale behind your
>>> position.
>>
>> And I have provided links to Cohen's work among others. The Case for
>> Speciesisim.
>
> Argument from authority.
You obviously don't understand the fallacy. I am referring specifically to
his work, not his status.
> What parts of Cohen's work specifically do you feel justifies your
> position?
The whole Case for Speciesism, I believe I quoted a part aleady. Have you
tried learning about it?
>
>>> I already know the rationale for the positions I hold, and it's
>>> irrelevant to the discussion.
>>
>> I want to know about that position you hold and what the rationale for it
>> is.
>
> Get used to disappointment.
No fear, I am quite used to being disappointed by your responses.
>> The fact that you are attempting to connect speciesism and racism
>> demonstrates that you have not given this matter sufficient thought.
>
> They're different degrees of the same thing.
Nonsense.
>> expect such arguments from animal rights wing nuts, not from normal
>> intelligent people. Just because the two words are of the same form and
>> describe a type of discrimination, that does not mean necessarily or by
>> default that both are unjust or unfair.
>
> Where did I say they were?
"They're different degrees of the same thing."
>> Racism and sexism are wrong because the differences claimed by supporters
>> are falsehoods.
>
> Then you claim there are no differences?
You really are floundering. There are no *morally relevant* differences
between races or genders of human beings. There *are* morally relevant
differences between species. That is why the fact you eat some species is a
significant signpost.
>> differences perceived between species by and large are not falsehoods,
>
> You yourself expressed a falsehood in a different thread. The idea that
> only humans are capable of abstract thought. I'm sure you have plenty of
> other falsehoods floating around in that brain of yours.
Whatever floats your boat Tim.
Tim McGaughy
>
> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote i
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "Tim McGaughy" <tee...@toast.net> wrote
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>
>>>>>> You did not answer, quote, "Because we can ask that question"?
>>>>>
>>>>> That was my initial response, which was one part of my answer,
>>>>
>>>> Until I began asking questions, it was your ONLY answer, and you
>>>> seemed satisfied with it.
>>>
>>> You seem to be forgetting that I responded by asking you a simple yes
>>> or no question,
>>
>> The question was irrelevant. If your argument depends on what actions
>> I take during the course of a meal, your argument is severely flawed.
>
> By asking the question I am demonstrating that you don't consider some
> animals to be "special", that is unless you consider tasting good to be
> a valid determinant for "specialness".
So? I didn't ask why you think other animals aren't special. I asked why
you think humans are.
>>>> Then you argue that other animals do not have cognitive abilities?
>>>>
>>>> Seriously?
>>>
>>> I can't believe that a person of your apparent intellect could
>>> conclude that from what I just said.
>>
>> Then you do not argue that humans are special because of our cognitive
>> abilities?
>
> Apparently in your mind cognitive abilities are something that one
> either has or not, like wings. Are YOU serious?
Nice straw man.
Do you argue that other animals do not have cognitive abilities?
> I believe that humans are special, and so do you. It's an abstract
> concept, so "it" does actually exist.
Why do you believe humans are special?
>>> Special is a subjective concept which does not contain in itself any
>>> specific information.
>>
>> Then you were simply babbling?
>
> No, I was expressing an opinion on a complex subject.
Continue.
>>>> > You were uncooperative, for
>>>>> reasons known only to you.
>>>>
>>>> I told you my reasons. I wanted to know the rationale behind your
>>>> position.
>>>
>>> And I have provided links to Cohen's work among others. The Case for
>>> Speciesisim.
>>
>> Argument from authority.
>
> You obviously don't understand the fallacy.
I understand perfectly. One handwaves at someone one considers an
expert, in your case this Cohen, and does not bother to present the
points one thinks are relevant.
> I am referring specifically
> to his work, not his status.
If you don't consider him important, why did you bring him up?
>> What parts of Cohen's work specifically do you feel justifies your
>> position?
>
> The whole Case for Speciesism, I believe I quoted a part aleady. Have
> you tried learning about it?
Have you tried thinking on your own?
What parts of Cohen's work specifically do you feel justifies your position?
>>> The fact that you are attempting to connect speciesism and racism
>>> demonstrates that you have not given this matter sufficient thought.
>>
>> They're different degrees of the same thing.
>
> Nonsense.
Nice rebuttal.
Both are varying degrees of xenophobic reactions. A 'speciesist' (is
that even a word?) will react to different body shapes, brain size,
behavior, and a racist will react to all the same things, with the
addition of more insignificant differences, like skin color.
You don't agree?
>>> expect such arguments from animal rights wing nuts, not from normal
>>> intelligent people. Just because the two words are of the same form
>>> and describe a type of discrimination, that does not mean necessarily
>>> or by default that both are unjust or unfair.
>>
>> Where did I say they were?
>
> "They're different degrees of the same thing."
That's an observation, not a moral judgement.
>>> Racism and sexism are wrong because the differences claimed by
>>> supporters are falsehoods.
>>
>> Then you claim there are no differences?
>
> You really are floundering.
Inability to answer noted.
There are no *morally relevant* differences
> between races or genders of human beings. There *are* morally relevant
> differences between species. That is why the fact you eat some species
> is a significant signpost.
Significant signpost of what? Morality?