@znexyish said:

@censorshipsucks06 said:

@Knixon said:

@censorshipsucks06 said:

But that doesn't give them a free pass to molest minors. But it's gonna come out soon enough that they were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pedophilia.

That's statutory rape, not pedophilia.

Wrong again. You should run for Mayor of Wrongville.

From Psychology Today - Pedophilia definition - Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with children who are generally age 13 years or younger.

Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Geimer. He subsequently pled guilty to the charge of statutory rape. Pedophilia and Statutory Rape are not mutually exclusive.

Next.

Next in line is Cory Feldman when Barbara Walters ignored him. How long before someone brings up Michael Jackson or R. Kelly ?
Let me stir the pot a little more and say that more religious people, clergy etc. have done more of this molesting than your standard issue Hollywood scumbag.

Don't be so sure. But the parallel is compelling. Both have multiple molesters, and the power structure within both orgs has fought to cover up and/or protect those who are guilty. Those who kept the silence, sans the victims, will be judged as well as those who committed the atrocities.

@FormerlyKnownAs said:

just wish that the media didn't create such a salacious, circus-like atmosphere surrounding such revelations.

Me too. I just think all the over-reactions about "This person SAID this and I'm OFFENDED" garbage, then this wouldn't have that feel to it. These ARE big stories. The problem is we've become a "Victim-hood" culture. One where anyone that hears something they don't like or agree with is considered offensive. The way the media blows up about EVERYTHING reminds me of a modern day Salem Witch Trial. Most of it coming from the political world, but certainly not all.

Then when something big DOES occur, it's tougher for some people to pay attention because it gets lumped in with all the other 'noise' the media transmits on a daily basis.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

@Knixon said:

@censorshipsucks06 said:

But that doesn't give them a free pass to molest minors. But it's gonna come out soon enough that they were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pedophilia.

That's statutory rape, not pedophilia.

Wrong again. You should run for Mayor of Wrongville.

From Psychology Today - Pedophilia definition - Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with children who are generally age 13 years or younger.

Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Geimer. He subsequently pled guilty to the charge of statutory rape. Pedophilia and Statutory Rape are not mutually exclusive.

Next.

They just pulled out a number. They also don't determine the laws. Pedophelia is about pre-pubescent. Statutory rape is about anyone below the age of consent, typically 18. And it only applies if ONE of the people is above, and the other is below. Which is also part of pedophilia by the way. Unless you want to argue that two 13-year-olds messing around are both pedophiles.

@Knixon said:

@censorshipsucks06 said:

@Knixon said:

@censorshipsucks06 said:

But that doesn't give them a free pass to molest minors. But it's gonna come out soon enough that they were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pedophilia.

That's statutory rape, not pedophilia.

Wrong again. You should run for Mayor of Wrongville.

From Psychology Today - Pedophilia definition - Pedophilia is defined as the fantasy or act of sexual activity with children who are generally age 13 years or younger.

Polanski was arrested and charged with drugging and raping a 13-year-old girl named Samantha Geimer. He subsequently pled guilty to the charge of statutory rape. Pedophilia and Statutory Rape are not mutually exclusive.

Next.

They just pulled out a number. They also don't determine the laws. Pedophelia is about pre-pubescent. Statutory rape is about anyone below the age of consent, typically 18. And it only applies if ONE of the people is above, and the other is below. Which is also part of pedophilia by the way. Unless you want to argue that two 13-year-olds messing around are both pedophiles.

That wasn't his point. He said "statutory rape and Pedophilia are not mutually exclusive". That is a factual statement.

Also there are several definitions online that extend the age limit to 13 . Either way it's another example of you distorting a conversation with semantics. An Ephebophile goes to the same prison that a pedophile does if they abuse a child. Why does it matter beyond semantics what label you put on it?

Does everyone forget what I was responding to, just because it's all the way back on page 1 of 2, from yesterday?

@censorshipsucks06 said:

But that doesn't give them a free pass to molest minors. But it's gonna come out soon enough that they were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pedophilia.

I wasn't the one who conflated minors (statutory rape, anyone under the age of 18) and pedophilia (pre-pubescent).

@Knixon said:

Does everyone forget what I was responding to, just because it's all the way back on page 1 of 2, from yesterday?

@censorshipsucks06 said:

But that doesn't give them a free pass to molest minors. But it's gonna come out soon enough that they were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to pedophilia.

I wasn't the one who conflated minors (statutory rape, anyone under the age of 18) and pedophilia (pre-pubescent).

Again read : NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. A pre-ebuscent child IS a minor.

I never said they were mutually exclusive. But it's still a mistake to conflate them or to shift from one to the other within a paragraph or thought process. It's also a flaw in logic/argument, because while it suggests too much similarity at least for the person making the statement (who is mistaken), "all A are B" does not mean/imply "all B are A." For that matter, except for Kevin Spacey the flack in Hollywood now as I've read it, including Harvey Weinstein, is about neither pedophilia nor statutory rape. So far as I've head, no accusers of Weinstein were underage at the time, let alone pre-pubescent. The youngest I recall hearing about in his case, Rose McGowan, was 23 or 24 at the time of the alleged event(s). However even if there were some who were underage, that still makes it statutory rape not pedophilia, unless they were prepubescent.

What might be the silliest part is he could have avoided the mistake just by adding something like "also," or "for that matter..." Because pedophilia really is a separate thought, standard, and issue.

Knixon is a prime example of someone who needs to pick things apart in an attempt to boost how he/she appears. This is backed up by the fact he/she continually clings to any incorrect point they may have made, no matter how obvious it is that they were incorrect.

Again, I've never seen a poster, on this board, who's wrong more often than Knixon. The fact the he/she's essentially the only one that continually plays this semantics game with their continual_ "I didn't conflate the two...." _ nonsense clearly shows where the issue lies. It's almost as if the goal is to disrupt as many threads as possible. The hallmark of a troll. Knixon is bordering on becoming the board's first official troll since the migration from IMDB. Now, Knixon will deny this - but I think if anyone looks at the threads where he (I'm going to make this assumption going forward unless Knixon clarifies gender) posts will see he does this on multiple occasions.

And who deflects/projects more than anyone else? At least on message boards.

Just in case the problem is that some people can't think rationally about the issue because it involves sex etc, how about a different example. Imagine that CS06 had written:

But that doesn't give them a free pass on homicide. But it's gonna come out soon enough that they were just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to first-degree murder.

Now, all first-degree murders are homicides, but does everyone understand that homicide just means someone caused someone else's death, and that there are various degrees including negligent manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc, and that first-degree murder involves premeditation, malice aforethought, etc? So that they are, in fact, significantly different in terms of the law? And so shifting from "homicide" to "first-degree murder" within a thought process/paragraph even slightly implying that they are more similar, is not a good thing? So then, put aside judgment-clouding emotional reactions to sex etc, and recognize that statutory rape and pedophilia should not be similarly linked or conflated. There, done.

Stop conflating murder and sex crimes.

And for the record, nobody gives a shit about your imagination. That's no way to have a discussion. Though with you, it's typical because you tend to pull things out of thin air, or what could otherwise be called your brain.

But this is typical. You pull something out of your rear end - and then refute the point you made, not the what anyone else made. You must sit around and debate with yourself a lot. You certainly do it out here enough.

Here's what YOU said.

"That's statutory rape, not pedophilia."

You see. I don't have to 'imagine' anything. I can simply quote you. And I simply pointed out that you are incorrect when it comes to that specific situation. For whatever reason - you can't deal with that. And that's your problem - no matter how much you try to deflect and make it about everyone else.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

Stop conflating murder and sex crimes.

And for the record, nobody gives a shit about your imagination. That's no way to have a discussion. Though with you, it's typical because you tend to pull things out of thin air, or what could otherwise be called your brain.

But this is typical. You pull something out of your rear end - and then refute the point you made, not the what anyone else made. You must sit around and debate with yourself a lot. You certainly do it out here enough.

Here's what YOU said.

"That's statutory rape, not pedophilia."

You see. I don't have to 'imagine' anything. I can simply quote you. And I simply pointed out that you are incorrect when it comes to that specific situation. For whatever reason - you can't deal with that. And that's your problem - no matter how much you try to deflect and make it about everyone else.

It's not worth it wasting any time going back and forth with him .

And it's funny, he constantly criticizes me for my youth and for being a Grad student while he's this grand purveyor of "experience", but it's all horseschitt. Guarantee you he couldn't beat our freshman debate team.

I've never encountered anyone online with less cohesive thinking.

@CalabrianQueen said:

It's not worth it wasting any time going back and forth with him .

I've never encountered anyone online with less cohesive thinking.

Agreed. I'm just amazed at how he steps in - puts forth a completely different scenario (one could say he was conflating) - and then replies to himself - and then declares 'victory'. It's actually quite sad. And the fact he tried unsuccessfully to point out I was wrong, and was wrong himself in his accusation, really seems to stick in his craw. I'm just cracking up at his 6 line paragraph that refutes his own statement he inserted and substituted for mine, which has nothing to do with anything anyone is discussing.

My favorite is Kevin Spacey:

"Yes I molested a child, but I have an excuse: I was drunk and I'm gay."

Now I don't know how the gays feel about this, but as a drunk, I take deep offense that he thinks that that is an excuse to attack children.

@Tim-Buktu said:

My favorite is Kevin Spacey:

"Yes I molested a child, but I have an excuse: I was drunk and I'm gay."

Now I don't know how the gays feel about this, but as a drunk, I take deep offense that he thinks that that is an excuse to attack children.

And now Dustin Hoffman joins the club. "I don't remember it - but I apologize if I did that".
You KNOW they are guilty as hell, and clearly remember other things they've done if they don't remember the incident in question. Which is why they can't give a full-throated (no pun intended) denial.

@censorshipsucks06 said:

@Tim-Buktu said:

My favorite is Kevin Spacey:

"Yes I molested a child, but I have an excuse: I was drunk and I'm gay."

Now I don't know how the gays feel about this, but as a drunk, I take deep offense that he thinks that that is an excuse to attack children.

And now Dustin Hoffman joins the club. "I don't remember it - but I apologize if I did that".
You KNOW they are guilty as hell, and clearly remember other things they've done if they don't remember the incident in question. Which is why they can't give a full-throated (no pun intended) denial.

Basically every director, actor, Producer and agent now has to go back into their long term memory and brace to apologize in case they groped somebody and forgot.

And you can add Jeremy Piven to the list. And a third person accused Spacey.