Metal Reviews

"Defending" and "questioning the value of a prosecution" are completely different things, and leaving the forum over it is silly. And for the record, I wasn't worried about the discussion of NSBM, but the positive portrayal thereof. And there was no positive portrayal of child rape in this thread.

Excuses like this make me sick to my stomach, tbh.

Why are you defending Polanski? He DRUGGED and RAPED a 13 year old girl-- a crime committed by the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth. I honestly struggle to understand the perspective behind comments like these. You're defending an admitted child rapist?

i knew the internet hated women but what the fuck

I'm so on V with this. If this was your sister or daughter or even mother back in the 70s shit, you wouldn't care if his sentence was questionable. He was never sentenced at all. His 90 days in psychiatric evaluation was supposed to contribute or support his sentence and didn't qualify as his actual time. You're just being daft if you don't understand that.

Yeah for real. Another great job, Frigid. She was on drugs as well so she probably didn't really give a shit.

Anyway, I spent this whole thread epically confused because I was like "Polanski... didn't he murder Sharon Tate?". I was going to storm in with "SO YOU'RE DEFENDING MURDER NOW GOAT YOU LOONY LIBERTARIAN" but am kind of glad I didn't now. It's just child rape!

In other news... it appears V has gone again?

It's still rape, but I'm just pointing out the blurred lines between sexual maturity and immaturity. A lot of the anti-Polanski rhetoric uses shock value and emotional manipulation to get its point across, i.e. "what if it was your daughter?"

Let's use emotional manipulation too. What if he was your father?
Remeber he's accussed for something he did 38 years ago. He's now a family guy with a wife and two children. He's not the same man.

And I'm not defending him. I just say than emotional manipulation runs in both directions.

Honestly guys, I hate to find myself arguing on the same side as Frigid, and there is no excuse for child rape whether you've been through the holocaust and seen your wife gutted by nutters or not (seriously, I'm not saying it's an excuse, but it must have all done something to his head - read up on it...). And what Fridge said re 'she deserved it, the slag' is horrendous and marks him out as the worst sort of Daily Mail-reading lunatic.

But it appears from what you guys are saying that rape is so awful a crime that the natural process of law must be lifted and HE MUST BE PUNISHED!!111 Why? Because WHAT IF IT WAS YOUR WIFE/SISTER/DAUGHTER, YOU WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM. Yeah. And? The law is the law, and you can't start saying that someone didn't get a harsh enough sentence according to public opinion so must be tried and punished again. It's an emotional response that comes from the same insane place as lynching murderers and castrating paedophiles, both actions of a dangerous, mob-ruled society that acts according to its whims - they may deserve lynching/castrating according to our emotional responses, but this is one of the many reasons that civilised society is so great, that that doesn't happen.

You guys really can't get my point here?

there is no excuse for child rape. Period.



Yes. I'm with you. And my other point is the timing... that happened 38 years ago. And all the judgement circunstances, that are a mess and an example that what justice is not.

Of course I get the point... I don't actually have a strong opinion either way on this, in all honesty.

1) Fuck you
2) I'm NOT saying she deserved it, at all.

Fridge, that 'using sex as a tool' stuff does not suggest a positive view of the good ladies at all, let alone this particular one.



I had some hilarious and biting response worked out about how it's easier to be sarcastic than to form opinions, but the phone went and I've forgotten it now. But yes, neither do I really, just don't like to see people using the appeal to emotion in arguments about law.

It wasn't a description of what I thought this particular case involved, but more of an element of her character I thought was relevant to the overall atmosphere surrounding the incident.

I don't. Read the facts of the case - she said stop, he didn't. She could have been a thirty year-old former pornstar who only did violent 8-men gangbangs, that doesn't mean that she has some 'character' that stops rape being rape.

That's not what I'm saying either. It's about the mood surrounding the case- it's rape, not the defilement of some paragon of innocence and young beauty.

She did have a reputation, I grant you that much. I really couldn't care about the case's atmosphere here, though.

I do, because it affects the level of condemnation that the man may or may not receive.

Who's V?

Well, he did rape a 13 year old. We can't make allowances for retards saying "well, at least she wasn't a virgin!"



Cry of the banshee, formerly known as Valefor. No-one knows his real name, but I like to think it's Timmy.

In many other cases this would have been used against her or, at least, taken into balance as to question her morality.
I'm not saying this would have been alright and should have been used against her, just that it shows the prosecutor was somewhat biased at to the conclusion the case should come to.


Timmy!
I don't think he's gone though. This kind of people enjoys teh internet flamewars too much not to return.