• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does the Roman Polanski affair affect your view of the French?[W:72]

Roman Polanski and your perception of France

  • I can't believe France is protecting a child raper

    Votes: 13 59.1%
  • The French are absolutely correct to do what they're doing.

    Votes: 3 13.6%
  • It's wrong, but hey... cest la vie

    Votes: 4 18.2%
  • A little rape never harmed anyone.

    Votes: 2 9.1%

  • Total voters
    22
You failed to answer my other charges, but it doesn't matter.

I just want to know a couple things:

Are you claiming that the US never lost a battle in Vietnam?

If so, what do you think that says about the US?

The American military may have lost fire fights during a battle but won the battle.

I provided the military definition above what a battle is.

It's like the liberals definition of an assault rifle. The worlds militaries have already defined what an assault rifle is, exactly what the Wehrmacht said it was. Most firearms that liberals have labeled as assault rifles only because they are scary looking to them are not considered to be assault rifles in any military.

To win a battle, territory has to be taken, occupied and held. Be it on land, sea or in the air.

The United States never attempted gaining air superiority over North Vietnam. But North Vietnam never had air superiority over their own country.
 
And we limit our options to one of those two parties holding the high ground.

Then in my opinion, in this case, and only for the reasons I've given (twice now, actually) France takes the high ground.

That you think taking the side of a monster who drugged and raped a young girl constitutes claiming any moral “high ground” certainly tells us all we need to know about your character.
 
The American military may have lost fire fights during a battle but won the battle.

I provided the military definition above what a battle is.

It's like the liberals definition of an assault rifle. The worlds militaries have already defined what an assault rifle is, exactly what the Wehrmacht said it was. Most firearms that liberals have labeled as assault rifles only because they are scary looking to them are not considered to be assault rifles in any military.

To win a battle, territory has to be taken, occupied and held. Be it on land, sea or in the air.

The United States never attempted gaining air superiority over North Vietnam. But North Vietnam never had air superiority over their own country.

Though I have provided mounds of evidence to disprove your conclusion, I'm no longer here to debate that.

What I want to know is what you think that represents -- why is it important to you? You appear adamant that the US did not lose a battle in Vietnam -- be that true or false, I want to know what that means to you.
 
I really don’t give a ****. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

- Gore Vidal on Roman Polanski and women, to The Atlantic, 2009.

My sentiments exactly.

So you think it's fair, in all cases, to equate any young rape victim to a prostitute?
 
Though I have provided mounds of evidence to disprove your conclusion, I'm no longer here to debate that.

What I want to know is what you think that represents -- why is it important to you? You appear adamant that the US did not lose a battle in Vietnam -- be that true or false, I want to know what that means to you.

You provided one individual's opinion that is nothing more than revisionism.

This is nothing but thread drift.

The topic has been covered more than a few times under the DP's Military Forum. Your revisionism will not stand up over there.

Most recently with 391 replies with 5,179 views. -> http://www.debatepolitics.com/military/170304-why-did-america-lose-vietnam-war.html

In my case, I have a chip on my shoulder when it comes to the Vietnam War. The ###### ass holes who sent me 10,000 miles away to fight in a war that we should have never got involved in back stabbed me and 3 million other vets while we were still on the battlefield.
 
So you think it's fair, in all cases, to equate any young rape victim to a prostitute?

Exactly. First, she was drugged and he had sex with her when she was barely conscious. Second, she was THIRTEEN.

In other words, she was an eighth grader. Not even high school.

But these Libs want to call her a hooker? SMH.

Wonder what they would say if a 43 year old man drugged their middle school aged daughter, had sex with her, and then the public calls her a whore.

Long live France. Btw, the French public overwhelmingly favors extradition.
 
Exactly. First, she was drugged and he had sex with her when she was barely conscious. Second, she was THIRTEEN.

In other words, she was an eighth grader. Not even high school.

But these Libs want to call her a hooker?

There's another thread, which begins with the suggestion that the pervert-rights movement, on getting homosexuality “normalized”, will logically proceed to try to similarly promote the acceptance and normalization of other perversions, including pedophilia. It seems to me that there's a fairly clear overlap between the pervert-rights advocates in that other thread who swear up and down that they'll stop with homosexuality, and those in this thread who defend Mr. Polanski and his protectors. And what they defend here, regarding Mr, Polanski's behavior, is a few steps beyond what, in the other thread, they swear they will never support.

It also ties in with the defenders of abortion, who like to equate the innocent child who is targeted by this savage practice to a rapist.
 
There's another thread, which begins with the suggestion that the pervert-rights movement, on getting homosexuality “normalized”, will logically proceed to try to similarly promote the acceptance and normalization of other perversions, including pedophilia. It seems to me that there's a fairly clear overlap between the pervert-rights advocates in that other thread who swear up and down that they'll stop with homosexuality, and those in this thread who defend Mr. Polanski and his protectors. And what they defend here, regarding Mr, Polanski's behavior, is a few steps beyond what, in the other thread, they swear they will never support.

It also ties in with the defenders of abortion, who like to equate the innocent child who is targeted by this savage practice to a rapist.


No, I'm not buying that.

I just think any lib defending Roman Polansky is being cheap and shallow. They're thinking about left vs right more than they are thinking about the victim and the crime. Nobody can think it's OK for a 43 year old man to drug and rape a 13 year old girl.

These libs are seeking out some reason to marginalize or ignore the rape of a child because they're so dug in to their side on this left vs right debate, they can't see the forest for the trees anymore.

Which is why I love love love this issue. It will jar some of them loose.

Every dem, lefty, etc KNOWS it's wrong to rape a 13 year old child. Every single one. They have to, or they aren't even fit to call human.

Now they can choose to ignore it, but somewhere in the back of their minds, they will always know that the big money that buys elections for the Democratic Party, namely the Hollywood producers, are the same asshats that support Roman Polanski and his getting away with rape.

This is the party of women's rights (unless it's a young girl a powerful Hollywood director covets, then she's fair game for rape) and the party of sympathy (unless it's a 13 year old little girl raped by a powerful artist).

You know it has to make at least the decent ones stop and think.

No matter what pet issues they believe in, no matter how right they think they are, they will, in the back of their minds, always know that the money that backed so many of their elections is the same blood money that allowed the rapist of a 13 year old child to walk free. And that money continues to support him to this day.

The 1 percent.... oh the irony.

And that's something a normal, average, decent person, even a left-leaning person, needs to sit back and question.

Is that really the party I want to support? Am I really OK with a hollywood elite raping a child and escaping under cover of night and with the support of the whole hollywood community?

I mean, people have to look at that and ask questions.
 
No, I'm not buying that.

I just think any lib defending Roman Polansky is being cheap and shallow. They're thinking about left vs right more than they are thinking about the victim and the crime. Nobody can think it's OK for a 43 year old man to drug and rape a 13 year old girl.

These libs are seeking out some reason to marginalize or ignore the rape of a child because they're so dug in to their side on this left vs right debate, they can't see the forest for the trees anymore.

Which is why I love love love this issue. It will jar some of them loose.

Every dem, lefty, etc KNOWS it's wrong to rape a 13 year old child. Every single one. They have to, or they aren't even fit to call human.

A generation ago, the idea that homosexuals would be demanding the right to “marry”, and to have their “marriage recognized as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage; and that anyone opposing this idea could be marginalized as “bigots”, or even sued and driven out of business for declining to provide services in support of such a disgusting mockery of something sacred; was at least as unthinkable as you and I now think that it is to let a guy get away scot-free with drugging and anally-raping a 13-year-old girl.

You cannot deny it, that some of those on the fringes of this movement; knowing fully what they are doing, have defended Mr. Polanski, and condemned those who wish to see him brought to justice. They are the ones on the current leading edge of a movement that has been going for at least a few generations, now. They're the fringe of this movement, for now, just as those defending homosexuality were on the fringe a generation ago.
 
As far as I can see, the moral laxity in this case resides in the Californian justice system. The judge and prosecutors were happy to bargain the plea down to illegal sex with a minor, then reneged on the deal. Neither the victim nor Polanski had any reason to expect that justice would be done. They sorted it out between themselves. The matter is closed. The French and the Swiss both recognised that the US has not behaved properly and have thus denied extradition, nothing to do with the death penalty.
 
As far as I can see, the moral laxity in this case resides in the Californian justice system. The judge and prosecutors were happy to bargain the plea down to illegal sex with a minor, then reneged on the deal. Neither the victim nor Polanski had any reason to expect that justice would be done. They sorted it out between themselves. The matter is closed. The French and the Swiss both recognised that the US has not behaved properly and have thus denied extradition, nothing to do with the death penalty.


I am in no way surprised that this is your take on the issue.

You are in the minority for Europeans, though, as polls show nearly 80 percent of Frenchmen agree that Polanski should be extradited.

I suppose the fringe is always going to exist, though, so thanks for sharing your view.
 
I don't know much of the details about this. I remember it of course... I remember many people saying the case and the trial were messed up somehow, and questioning whether Polanski was actually guilty of forcible rape, or just statutory rape.

I recall the stink about France refusing extradition.


It was a long time ago though, and I have trouble getting worked up about it now at this late date.
 
I don't know much of the details about this. I remember it of course... I remember many people saying the case and the trial were messed up somehow, and questioning whether Polanski was actually guilty of forcible rape, or just statutory rape.

I recall the stink about France refusing extradition.


It was a long time ago though, and I have trouble getting worked up about it now at this late date.

He's still in France, living the high life, with no justice ever being served. The French refuse to cooperate.
 
A generation ago, the idea that homosexuals would be demanding the right to “marry”, and to have their “marriage recognized as being in any way comparable to a genuine marriage; and that anyone opposing this idea could be marginalized as “bigots”, or even sued and driven out of business for declining to provide services in support of such a disgusting mockery of something sacred; was at least as unthinkable as you and I now think that it is to let a guy get away scot-free with drugging and anally-raping a 13-year-old girl.

You cannot deny it, that some of those on the fringes of this movement; knowing fully what they are doing, have defended Mr. Polanski, and condemned those who wish to see him brought to justice. They are the ones on the current leading edge of a movement that has been going for at least a few generations, now. They're the fringe of this movement, for now, just as those defending homosexuality were on the fringe a generation ago.

Are you really comparing consensual adult homosexuality with child rape?

How are they in any way comparable?
 
Are you really comparing consensual adult homosexuality with child rape?

How are they in any way comparable?

A generation from now, when, if the pervert-rights movement gets its way, child rape will be legal and considered acceptable; some counterpart then to yourself will be asking some counterpart to me if he is serious about likening child rape to whichever perversion that movement is then trying to get to be considered acceptable.
 
A generation from now, when, if the pervert-rights movement gets its way, child rape will be legal and considered acceptable; some counterpart then to yourself will be asking some counterpart to me if he is serious about likening child rape to whichever perversion that movement is then trying to get to be considered acceptable.

You didn't answer my question. Are you saying they are comparable?

One is consensual, the other is not. One is between adults, the other is taking advantage of a child. How are these things comparable?
 
Back
Top Bottom