Hollywood pedophiles

[Tambora]

Saw a news commentator make the argument if one should separate inappropriate from the appropriate in a person.
They uses Kevin Spacey as an example.

Spacey is a pedophile.
Spacey is an excellent actor.

Neither adds to or takes away from the other.

So, if you were wanting an excellent actor to play a fictional character in a movie, how does Spacey being a pedophile hinder his ability to fulfill the requirement you need for the job?

Or to put another way, if Michael Angelo was a pedophile, would his art be any less spectacular?

And yet another way to put it, if Kevin Spacey invented a cure for cancer, would we say, "Sorry, bud, your're a pedophile so we will not support it"?



I can see his point.
Even law enforcement will use convicted criminals to help them solve a case for another suspected criminal as a means to better fulfill the job.
So it is not unrealistic to use deplorables to get a job done that is needed to get done at the time.

Which then leads to the job of a President.
Do you hire the guy that has the best ability to get the job done, or do you restrict yourself with a lesser qualified person because he is a nicer guy?

Would it be realistic to disqualify a genius in favor of less satisfactory results because the genius was not as nice of a guy?
How do we approach this realistically?

 

[patrick jane]

Saw a news commentator make the argument if one should separate inappropriate from the appropriate in a person.
They uses Kevin Spacey as an example.

Spacey is a pedophile.
Spacey is an excellent actor.

Neither adds to or takes away from the other.

So, if you were wanting an excellent actor to play a fictional character in a movie, how does Spacey being a pedophile hinder his ability to fulfill the requirement you need for the job?

Or to put another way, if Michael Angelo was a pedophile, would his art be any less spectacular?

And yet another way to put it, if Kevin Spacey invented a cure for cancer, would we say, "Sorry, bud, your're a pedophile so we will not support it"?



I can see his point.
Even law enforcement will use convicted criminals to help them solve a case for another suspected criminal as a means to better fulfill the job.
So it is not unrealistic to use deplorables to get a job done that is needed to get done at the time.

Which then leads to the job of a President.
Do you hire the guy that has the best ability to get the job done, or do you restrict yourself with a lesser qualified person because he is a nicer guy?

Would it be realistic to disqualify a genius in favor of less satisfactory results because the genius was not as nice of a guy?
How do we approach this realistically?

We forgive former drug addicts, alcoholics, bank robbers etc. but pedophilia is in a league all it's own, along with child molesters. I think of young children in those circumstances and it's too sickening to forgive. Personally, I don't consider Spacey making a move on a 16 year old boy child molestation. It borders on pedophilia but again I think of younger children.

As far as "nice people" for President and such, I would rather have the genius (Trump) that rubs people the wrong way than a politically correct shmo like Obummer.

 

[Tambora]

We forgive former drug addicts, alcoholics, bank robbers etc. but pedophilia is in a league all it's own, along with child molesters. I think of young children in those circumstances and it's too sickening to forgive. Personally, I don't consider Spacey making a move on a 16 year old boy child molestation. It borders on pedophilia but again I think of younger children.

As far as "nice people" for President and such, I would rather have the genius (Trump) that rubs people the wrong way than a politically correct shmo like Obummer.

It is an interesting dilemma.
It basically boils down to ------- can you detest one aspect of person and at the same time admire another aspect of the same person.

I no more believe that all that voted for Clinton were supportive of rape anymore than I believe all that voted for Trump were supportive of groping women.
Only a complete moron would suggest that.

 

[annabenedetti]

[h=1]NRSC poll: Moore trails Jones by 12[/h]

 

[Tambora]

Hannity keeping the pressure on Moore.

[h=1]Hannity gives Moore 24 hours to explain the inconsistencies[/h]

 

[musterion]

Saw a news commentator make the argument if one should separate inappropriate from the appropriate in a person.
They uses Kevin Spacey as an example.

Spacey is a pedophile.
Spacey is an excellent actor.

Neither adds to or takes away from the other.

So, if you were wanting an excellent actor to play a fictional character in a movie, how does Spacey being a pedophile hinder his ability to fulfill the requirement you need for the job?

Or to put another way, if Michael Angelo was a pedophile, would his art be any less spectacular?

And yet another way to put it, if Kevin Spacey invented a cure for cancer, would we say, "Sorry, bud, your're a pedophile so we will not support it"?



I can see his point.
Even law enforcement will use convicted criminals to help them solve a case for another suspected criminal as a means to better fulfill the job.
So it is not unrealistic to use deplorables to get a job done that is needed to get done at the time.

Which then leads to the job of a President.
Do you hire the guy that has the best ability to get the job done, or do you restrict yourself with a lesser qualified person because he is a nicer guy?

Would it be realistic to disqualify a genius in favor of less satisfactory results because the genius was not as nice of a guy?
How do we approach this realistically?

An excellent teacher is exposed as a decades-long collector of child porn. He/she has never once, so far as anyone has said, even attempted anything improper with any child. Since he/she is such a high quality teacher, he/she should be allowed to continue to teach because in this case the pedophilia is not an issue.

The logic cited by Tam is idiocy...just because Pedophile X performs ______ function in society which I happen to appreciate, his/her pedophilia shouldn't be an issue.

No. A line HAS to be drawn, short, hard and fast.

Besides, the real point of "Okay, yeah he's a pedo BUT..." is to excuse and normalize pedophilia, period.

 

[Tambora]

An excellent teacher is exposed as a decades-long collector of child porn. He/she has never once, so far as anyone has said, even attempted anything improper with any child. Since he/she is such a high quality teacher, he/she should be allowed to continue to teach because in this case the pedophilia is not an issue.

The logic cited by Tam is idiocy...just because Pedophile X performs ______ function in society which I happen to appreciate, his/her pedophilia shouldn't be an issue.

No. A line HAS to be drawn, short, hard and fast.

Besides, the real point of "Okay, yeah he's a pedo BUT..." is to excuse and normalize pedophilia, period.

It wasn't my argument.
But the commentator I heard it from makes a good point.

A pedophile invents a cure for cancer.
Would accepting that cure be an excuse to normalize pedophilia?
I don't think it would.

 

[WizardofOz]

It wasn't my argument.
But the commentator I heard it from makes a good point.

Who is the commentator?

 

[musterion]

It wasn't my argument.

I know, you just cited it.

A pedophile invents a cure for cancer.
Would accepting that cure be an excuse to normalize pedophilia?
I don't think it would.

It damn well would be used by perverts to normalize it though, probably in very subtle ways in the media the way they did with sodomites...so subtly that few would notice, be offended or object. Then before you know it, it's the new normal.

 

[Tambora]

We forgive former drug addicts, alcoholics, bank robbers etc. but pedophilia is in a league all it's own, along with child molesters

I think people have the wrong idea about 'forgive'.
Forgive doesn't just mean that you will not retaliate, it means you forget his sin altogether as if there is no conflict between you at all.
We retaliate towards those folks by making them pay some kind of debt (locking them up, or fining, or something).

Now we do give some of those folks a second chance (after they have paid their debt), but we don't really forgive them in the true sense of the word, if that is what you mean.
And yeah, I also consider crimes against children as one of the worst of humanity.

 

[musterion]

Think of it this way.

"Oh, so you're 'normal' and better than someone who loves children? Really? When's the last time YOU invented a cure for cancer? Well that's what this child lover did! Let's open our minds and hearts in a heartwarming, up close interview...tomorrow on Oprah."

That right there would instantly convince millions of idiot women.

 

[Tambora]

I know, you just cited it.



It damn well would be used by perverts to normalize it though, probably in very subtle ways in the media the way they did with sodomites...so subtly that few would notice, be offended or object. Then before you know it, it's the new normal.

So you would refuse the cure on principle if one of your children had cancer?
You are a more principled man than me, I would take it and cure my child.

 

[musterion]

So you would refuse the cure on principle if one of your children had cancer?
You are a more principled man than me, I would take it and cure my child.

We have many blessings of technology that were invented by fools, infidels and madmen. Of course I would use the cure but I am correctly predicting how it would be used to normalize child rape. And I know you know it as well as I do.

 

[Tambora]

Who is the commentator?

It was Andrew Claven.
But I don't recall if it was on his show or if he was a guest on someone's show.
Him, Steven Crowder, Gavin Mcinnes, Ben Shapiro, and a few others have him on their shows at times.
I'll post if I run across it again.
Sometimes videos I have already watched will show up on the right hand side of the screen with youtube, so I might recognize it if I see it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

We have many blessings of technology that were invented by fools, infidels and madmen. Of course I would use the cure but I am correctly predicting how it would be used to normalize child rape. And I know you know it as well as I do.

Well, no, you're just being your usual, bitter crank of a self who isn't 'happy' unless he's concocting all sorts of unsubstantiated paranoid delusions. The facts are completely and utterly against you but don't let them get in the way of your rants. Laws in regards to protecting children from any abuse have been tightened, be that sexual, physical, emotional or any combination of the above. You're just yet another clueless crank who seems to need to invent such conspiracies for some reason.

Ever heard of the Human Rights Act? The Social Care Code Of Practice? The Care Act? All manner of other legislation where it comes to the safeguarding of children and people from abuse?

Get educated you ignoramus.

 

[Tambora]

We have many blessings of technology that were invented by fools, infidels and madmen. Of course I would use the cure but I am correctly predicting how it would be used to normalize child rape. And I know you know it as well as I do.

Sure it will.

But I can almost guarantee that everyone reading the headline, Disgusting Pedophile Child Rapist Invents Cure for Cancer , are gonna be shouting "HALLELUJAH".
I don't think those with any common sense are going to think that was said for his pedophilia.
But yeah, the nutso nazis will certainly spin that "HALLELUJAH" to their advantage.

 

[Tambora]

Well, no, you're just being your usual, bitter crank of a self who isn't 'happy' unless he's concocting all sorts of unsubstantiated paranoid delusions. The facts are completely and utterly against you but don't let them get in the way of your rants. Laws in regards to protecting children from any abuse have been tightened, be that sexual, physical, emotional or any combination of the above. You're just yet another clueless crank who seems to need to invent such conspiracies for some reason.

Ever heard of the Human Rights Act? The Social Care Code Of Practice? The Care Act? All manner of other legislation where it comes to the safeguarding of children and people from abuse?

Get educated you ignoramus.

Musty is right.
At this point it could be an extreme case, but let's face it, extreme cases exist.

We are seeing right now in Hollywood how pedophilia has been hushed up, or just ignored, or threatened or payed
off a victim so film productions could go on.
It's been 'look the other way' for years to not rock the boat so as to have the appearance that everything was normal.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure it will.

But I can almost guarantee that everyone reading the headline, Disgusting Pedophile Child Rapist Invents Cure for Cancer , are gonna be shouting "HALLELUJAH".
I don't think those with any common sense are going to think that was said for his pedophilia.
But yeah, the nutso nazis will certainly spin that "HALLELUJAH" to their advantage.

The only 'nuts' about are those who think there'll be some societal acceptance or 'normalizing' of child rape.

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Musty is right.
At this point it could be an extreme case, but let's face it, extreme cases exist.

We are seeing right now in Hollywood how pedophilia has been hushed up, or just ignored, or threatened or payed
off a victim so film productions could go on.
It's been 'look the other way' for years to not rock the boat so as to have the appearance that everything was normal.

Um, and now such cases are coming to light they're being cracked down on, hard and with zero tolerance. There's no excuse for such abuse or any cover ups but the crackdowns on these cases show that there's no acceptance for paedophilia in society or anything to suggest it would be tolerated once these cases are being relayed. The opposite of what Musty suggests...

 

[WizardofOz]

Sure it will.

But I can almost guarantee that everyone reading the headline, Disgusting Pedophile Child Rapist Invents Cure for Cancer , are gonna be shouting "HALLELUJAH".
I don't think those with any common sense are going to think that was said for his pedophilia.
But yeah, the nutso nazis will certainly spin that "HALLELUJAH" to their advantage.

What does this wacky hypothetical rationalization have to do with the Roy Moore case? :idunno: