1604: Alienating

[rodimusprime]

Originally Posted by dannyhatch

I honestly do think there's a difference. What Keith did—horrible as it may have been—was to an adult, while Woody Allen, Roman Polanski and Michael Jackson abused children. Keith's roommate was a grown man who could have defended himself (and did, it sounds like, by not drinking all of the orange juice.) The nine-year old girl Polanski raped not only did nothing to deserve it but also had no way of defending herself.

Now, attempted murder is certainly awful and whether Keith was right or not is another story. I'm sure even Keith thinks he may have been in the wrong on that one. But it's absolutely not on the same level as taking sexual advantage of children like Misters Allen, Polanski and Jackson are guilty of.

Also I'd add... "C'mon"

[Junkenstein]

hey hatch, i understand you need to agree with keith's points blindly cause thats what you do, but woody allen fucked a 20 year old that doesnt sound like a "child" to me. creepy and wrong, yes. child abuser, not really.

besides that, this argument came up in the past and i agreed with keith all the other times it came up. theres really no comparison. although i see why chemda's saying what she says, even if its more emotion than reason.

[Blitzgal]

Damn, now I'm really excited to hear what the hell y'all talked about on this show. I'm saving it for my exercise after work.

[Boozerz]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

hey hatch, i understand you need to agree with keith's points blindly cause thats what you do, but woody allen fucked a 20 year old that doesnt sound like a "child" to me. creepy and wrong, yes. child abuser, not really.

besides that, this argument came up in the past and i agreed with keith all the other times it came up. theres really no comparison. although i see why chemda's saying what she says, even if its more emotion than reason.

Woody Allen groomed a child to basically be his sex slave.

[BlackhatGuy]

I don't see what the big deal is here...



(c'mon)

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by Boozerz

Woody Allen groomed a child to basically be his sex slave.

thats an ssumption though. Jackson raped kids. Polanski raped a kid.

the whole allen thign is mostly a very disgusting older/younger thing, but its not the same thing as sexual abuse on a child. still disgusting but not the same

not that i give afuck about him, i think hes just an obnoxious overrated dork that people love out of jew-loving guilt and comedian sonbbiness

[ForumsName]

Originally Posted by BlackhatGuy

I don't see what the big deal is here...

LMAO

[Junkenstein]

Originally Posted by BlackhatGuy

I don't see what the big deal is here...



(c'mon)

dont put words in my mouth, he is wrong. just saying hes not the same as jackson or polanski. but please keep wiking pictures, i figure thats fun.

[Boozerz]

Originally Posted by Junkenstein

thats an ssumption though. Jackson raped kids. Polanski raped a kid.

the whole allen thign is mostly a very disgusting older/younger thing, but its not the same thing as sexual abuse on a child. still disgusting but not the same

not that i give afuck about him, i think hes just an obnoxious overrated dork that people love out of jew-loving guilt and comedian sonbbiness

It doesn't matter if he touched her before she was 18. He essentially groomed a victim.

If people sign a contract swearing they won't fuck a kid until the child is legal, should they be allowed to adopt children with the intent of marrying them?

If she were his biological daughter, would you still defend it?

[Junkenstein]

are you fucking deaf? i am not defending it. my point is simply that it doesnt qualify as child fucking, for what is known.

for waht concerns me and my beluiefs he shoudl ve been castrated years ago. but what he did is nto the same as jackson did.

stop twisting words around and read