andrewducker | Delicious LiveJournal Links for 10-1-2009

No, I Will Not Molest Your Kids

A reaction to the extreme care some people now take.

(tags: children Child_abuse society)
Marmaduke meets Cthulhu!

(tags: comics funny cthulhu)
An Artificial Heart That Doesn't Beat

"You put this in cattle and they stand up and moo and eat and wonder why everyone is looking at them so weird," says William Cohn, a collaborator on the research and director of minimally invasive surgical technology at the Texas Heart Institute. "You see a cow wagging his tail and you say, wow, this is the future of the artificial heart."

(tags: future technology science biology heart)
French drop Polanski release call

A drop of common sense.

(tags: rape politics France)
Comics Review: Alan Moore & Bill Sienkiewicz, Big Numbers 3

Oh, what I'd pay for a completed Big Numbers.

(tags: comics alan_moore BillSienkiewicz review)
RAF leaflet box kills Afghan girl

Now _that_'s not going to be winning any hearts or minds

(tags: Irony EpicFail afghanistan)
A list of people who think that raping 13-year-olds is fine, if you make movies.

(tags: polanski rape EpicFail)
PC tune-up software: less effective than spending the cash on RAM

(tags: software windows memory)
Online advertising overtakes TV advertising in the UK

Now that was unexpected.

(tags: internet advertising tv)

No, I'm saying that you object to the arrest of a child rapist.

Edit: Actually, he's not been sentenced yet - so he's an alleged child rapist, legally. From the witness reports he seems to be an actual one, provided she wasn't lying, which he's never accused her of.

Edited 2009-10-01 14:07 (UTC)

Yes, I absolutely object to this arrest. Colors, mast, nailed.

"A list of people who think that raping 13-year-olds is fine, if you make movies."

"I think they're standing up in defense of someone who raped a 13 year old girl, yes. If that's not tacit defense of the act then what is it?"

So does this mean I condone child rape, or is that reserved for celebrities?

The first one wasn't meant seriously.

The second is. But "tacit defense" is not the same as "condone". The first can happen accidentally - it's a side-effect. It was also a question, which I'm still waiting for an answer to...

Apologies! I didn't realise that was a question, rather than rhetorical.

I can oppose the invasion of Iraq without being in favor of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, no? Or be in favor of some pictures of naked 10 year old girls and not child porn, right?

I don't see what those two have to do with this situation - are you saying that this particular case of drugging a 13 year old and then having anal and vaginal sex with her while she said no isn't rape? I'd like to assume that you're not - but I'm not sure what you are saying.

My position on one thing does not affect my position on another. Nuance, dude. Nuance.

My stance on the invasion does not mean I'm happy with Kurds being gassed. Your position on nudes of children in the Tate does not mean you're in favor of child porn. My position on his arrest, which I feel to be wrong, doesn't mean I think he's innocent, or that I'm in favour of child rape.

But if your only defence is "It happened while he was on his way to a film convention" - which was what the petition said, then you're arguing for exceptionalism, which I am against.

Annoyingly the petition now seems to have vanished.

Aha! Found a copy:
It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.
...
The arrest of Roman Polanski in a neutral country, where he assumed he could travel without hindrance, undermines this tradition: it opens the way for actions of which no one can know the effects.

So, because he was on his way to a film festival, and ignorant of the extradition treaty, he shouldn't be arrested? If that's not a feeble argument I don't know what is.

Irrelevant. You're saying if I have a feeble argument, I'm in favor of child rape.

Show me where I said that.

Actually, if you want someone to not be charged for child rape, and your reason for doing so is feeble, then I am very much saying that you are suggesting that we overlook it, or that we excuse it. Which is the very definition of condoning.

And they are saying we should overlook his child rape, with a feeble argument for doing so. So I stand by that.

Hmm.

I'm having a hard time arguing this, partially because it feels like you've started with a position of 'All those who disagree with my position tactitly support child rape'.

So I'm afraid I'll have to bow out. Cool?

One last thing, if that's ok? I think I got caught up in thinking that "condone" meant "support", which it doesn't. I'm clearly a subliterate idiot :-> So I was never saying that people _supported_ child rape, just that in this case they wanted to avoid dealing with the fact that someone was a child rapist. The Whoopi Goldberg example is clearly (to me)one of someone who is trying to defend someone who is a friend, and of good moral character, and is thus tying themselves in knots trying to find a way to be on their side. The other movie people signing the petition felt (again, to me) like a lesser version of that. I don't think they support child rape - I just think that they're wanting to sweep it under the carpet and finding excuses for doing so. Your reason (politics and lack of likelihood of a fair trial) strikes me as much better.

And I'd just like to make it clear that I never thought you had anything but goodwill behind your side of things. And I apologise for some of my tone (not all of it mind you) - I'm not going to back and read things now, but I'm sure some of my stress came out inappropriately.

Ok?

Oh, hey, I know you don't think of me as a child rapist (and there's a sentence I hope isn't easily Googled), any more than I think of you as someone who isn't fair, passionate or decent. Y'fascist. ;)

It *is* hard when someone you like does something you really can't countenance. Wossname from The Thick Of It - but he was on The Muppets!

I'd not really thought about the meaning of 'condone', so I dunno if that was confusing us.

I still, also, don't understand why you object to his arrest. Even if there's politics in the background, does that make him innocent?

His guilt or innocence have absolutely nothing to do with my feelings about his arrest. His crimes or alleged crimes have nothing to do with it either.

I don't believe there were politics in the background. I believe there were politics in the foreground, and so I don't feel justice is being done.

I'm not convinced that justice is being done by not returning him for trial either. In any case I believe that having him stand trial, in the full spotlight so as to ensure transparency, is the correct thing to do.

The petition also doesn't say "There is politics afoot, he will not get a fair trial!", it says "He was going to a film convention, if you start arresting people on their way to film conventions who knows where it will end?" - the first is defensible, the second doesn't seem defensible at all.

Edit: Actually, he's not been sentenced yet - so he's an alleged child rapist, legally.

No, he's not. He pled guilty. That makes him more than "alleged." It's the judgement (Guilty) that confirms guilt, not the sentencing.

Except he didn't plead guilty to rape:

Polanski was initially charged with rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance (methaqualone) to a minor. These charges were dismissed under the terms of his plea bargain, and he pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.

Delicious LiveJournal Links for 10-1-2009

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject