Serious question, languish, and one that is strongly reminiscent of the Catholic Church's problems.
Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?
Assume he wasn't caught but it is known among a select few- it is out of society's eyes. Should it be kept that way? Does he cease being a great man, and become instead defined for his sinful indiscretion? Finally, consider this- the man is beyond punishment now, being quite dead, and it is only his memory that is in jeopardy.
I am very much at grief about this, as it effects numerous dear to me, and of course calls for a re-imagining of how I knew certain people and their life narratives. You can never know everything that goes into making someone who they are, that's for sure.
Is it a great crime and disservice to pretend the molestation never happened?
I know languish is fond of making light of my life and times, but i'd appreciate a serious response at this, if that was at all possible.
A person can do great works and still be despicable human being. Some may say it's a prerequisite.
Anyhow, if it involves a crime, the authorities should be involved at any rate. And people should know the full truth. I never quite bought into "we mustn't destroy icons because they're important for society" line. Tear down the old icons, create new ones.
As it's molestation, not murder, and the perpetrator himself is dead, I'd leave it to the victims to decide if they want to publicize the deeds or not.
As Pedro touched on, the primary concern should be the well-being and happiness of the victims. If publicizing helps them come to terms, then that's the thing to do.
Mussolini made the trains run on time but that doesn't mean he was a scumbag.
Rosalind Franklin was a genius scientist, but apparently a horrible person.
We, not just the victims, need to know the truth.
You mean 'wasn't a scumbag' right Vikes? Right?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 29, 2012, 06:35:19 AM
You mean 'wasn't a scumbag' right Vikes? Right?
Eh, yeah, whoops. Mussolini was a scumbag.
Right.
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 29, 2012, 03:05:14 AM
Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?
What you thought was a great man is not, come to terms with it.
Quote from: Viking on August 29, 2012, 06:27:07 AM
Mussolini made the trains run on time but that doesn't mean he was a scumbag.
:face:
Benito was a jolly man.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2012, 07:08:21 AM
Benito was a jolly man.
He had the virtue of not being a kiddie fucker, so, not all bad. Unlike hitler who first pulled a jerry lee lewis and fucked his underage cousin then driving her into suicide.
Speaking of which, apparently Kosciuszko was a kiddie fucker.
And I agree with Peter Wiggin. And if there are no victims alive, I would err on the side of truth.
Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2012, 07:45:47 AM
Speaking of which, apparently Kosciuszko was a kiddie fucker.
Wow, that is a bummer.
Is that well established? Is that changing his assessment in Poland?
Quote from: alfred russel on August 29, 2012, 08:21:47 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2012, 07:45:47 AM
Speaking of which, apparently Kosciuszko was a kiddie fucker.
Wow, that is a bummer.
Is that well established? Is that changing his assessment in Poland?
Well, I guess it's not really possible to establish that unequivocally - there are only scant mentions and euphemisms about this, and in that period probably noone was particularly shaken but he apparently liked young girls.
Who doesn't?
Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2012, 08:38:57 AM
Well, I guess it's not really possible to establish that unequivocally - there are only scant mentions and euphemisms about this, and in that period probably noone was particularly shaken but he apparently liked young girls.
How young are we talking about?
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 29, 2012, 03:05:14 AM
Serious question, languish, and one that is strongly reminiscent of the Catholic Church's problems.
Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?
Assume he wasn't caught but it is known among a select few- it is out of society's eyes. Should it be kept that way? Does he cease being a great man, and become instead defined for his sinful indiscretion? Finally, consider this- the man is beyond punishment now, being quite dead, and it is only his memory that is in jeopardy.
I am very much at grief about this, as it effects numerous dear to me, and of course calls for a re-imagining of how I knew certain people and their life narratives. You can never know everything that goes into making someone who they are, that's for sure.
Is it a great crime and disservice to pretend the molestation never happened?
I know languish is fond of making light of my life and times, but i'd appreciate a serious response at this, if that was at all possible.
Rather than discuss this in generalities, I would be quite curious to hear the facts that makes you post this question. :)
Child sexual abuse is a significant problem, and all too often is hidden by the general culture of shame that surrounds it. We need to help victims come forward, we need to make it clear that such abuse will not be tolerated, and that victims will not be judged by being victims.
I see no reason at all to try and hide these kinds of despicable acts - but then again I don't know the particulars of your case.
Quote from: alfred russel on August 29, 2012, 09:06:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2012, 08:38:57 AM
Well, I guess it's not really possible to establish that unequivocally - there are only scant mentions and euphemisms about this, and in that period probably noone was particularly shaken but he apparently liked young girls.
How young are we talking about?
Around 10.
Maybe he was just really turned off by facial hair.
Sorry, I'll get my coat. :bowler:
What if a man is a great man because he was a genius cop who prevented 100 molestations, but then to celebrate that milestone he molested one of the boys he saved. Is he now a despicable man?
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 29, 2012, 03:05:14 AM
Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?
Some years ago, here in Portugal one of our most famous comedians (Herman José Krippahl) was discovered to have buttfucked several 15-year-old kids back in the 80s.
General attitude of the population was "he's funny, so screw the kids". Charges were dropped.
Anyway, with so many of our politicians raping 9-year-old boys by the dozens and making fun of it on national TV (many thousands of boys from the State orphanages were raped by them between the 1960s and early 2000s), it was hard to held a grudge against our comedian*.
Herman Krippahl continues to have an active career, of course (he's only 58).
*: Yes, we're run by a gay mafia.
Quote from: DGuller on August 29, 2012, 09:33:23 AM
What if a man is a great man because he was a genius cop who prevented 100 molestations, but then to celebrate that milestone he molested one of the boys he saved. Is he now a despicable man?
He's both a despicable man and a genius cop. You can't just add deeds together.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 29, 2012, 09:37:09 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 29, 2012, 03:05:14 AM
Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?
Some years ago, here in Portugal one of our most famous comedians (Herman José Krippahl) was discovered to have buttfucked several 15-year-old kids back in the 80s.
General attitude of the population was "he's funny, so screw the kids". Charges were dropped.
Anyway, with so many of our politicians raping 9-year-old boys by the dozens and making fun of it on national TV (many thousands of boys from the State orphanages were raped by them between the 1960s and early 2000s), it was hard to held a grudge against our comedian*.
Herman Krippahl continues to have an active career, of course (he's only 58).
*: Yes, we're run by a gay mafia.
Oddly enough that isn't what wiki says about the scandal in any language version.
Wikipedia authors do not go to dinners with ambassadors. :contract:
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 29, 2012, 09:37:09 AM
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 29, 2012, 03:05:14 AM
Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?
Some years ago, here in Portugal one of our most famous comedians (Herman José Krippahl) was discovered to have buttfucked several 15-year-old kids back in the 80s.
General attitude of the population was "he's funny, so screw the kids". Charges were dropped.
Anyway, with so many of our politicians raping 9-year-old boys by the dozens and making fun of it on national TV (many thousands of boys from the State orphanages were raped by them between the 1960s and early 2000s), it was hard to held a grudge against our comedian*.
Herman Krippahl continues to have an active career, of course (he's only 58).
*: Yes, we're run by a gay mafia.
A quick review on google shows this to be a reasonably dishonest version of the story. Jose's charges were dismissed because he showed he was working in Brazil at the time. And while the Casa Pia abuse allegations do not exactly cover the Portuguese justice system in glory, there have been several convictions.
My favorite example of this sort of thing was the great pioneering surgeon John Hunter. He was a genius of the medical world (a bronze bust of him stands outside the London College of Physicians & Surgeons) but he most definitely had a very dark side to his personality ...
His *known* bad deeds include organizing London's so-called "resurrection men" to find him suitable corpses for dissection, and hounding certain living "specimins" for his collection - like the Irish Giant (whose skeleton still adorns it). This wasn't too far different from what other surgeons did, but Hunter did it on a much larger scale than anyone - he was organizer and instigator.
His *suspected* bad deeds are far worse - there is a circumstantial case that he "collected" pregnant women (or rather, paid his gang of toughs to collect them) for disection before they were in fact dead.
[The proof of this relies on two things: perhaps unreliable contemporary rumour; and, more significantly, that he came out with a series of from-life dissections of the pregnant womb at various stages after pregnancy - i.e., womb at 2 weeks, womb at 4 weeks, etc. A statistical study demonstrates it would be very, very unlikely for sufficient pregnant women to die in the time the study was completed - even if his men succesfully stole every body in London of a pregnant women who died by natural causes it was unlikely he could have done it 'legitimately']
Quote from: Viking on August 29, 2012, 07:17:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2012, 07:08:21 AM
Benito was a jolly man.
He had the virtue of not being a kiddie fucker, so, not all bad. Unlike hitler who first pulled a jerry lee lewis and fucked his underage cousin then driving her into suicide.
I think he raped a chick once.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 29, 2012, 10:22:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 29, 2012, 07:17:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 29, 2012, 07:08:21 AM
Benito was a jolly man.
He had the virtue of not being a kiddie fucker, so, not all bad. Unlike hitler who first pulled a jerry lee lewis and fucked his underage cousin then driving her into suicide.
I think he raped a chick once.
She was on whore pills.
The greatness of the man overwhelms his crimes.
Also I find it difficult that Italian trains ran on time.
I get the feeling that the "Great Man" in question here, is some relative of Lettow's. If it's actually Nathan Bedford Forrest then for the love of God, release that information!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrollcats.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Froman_polanski_doesnt_deserve_your_sympathy_trollcat.jpg&hash=6c580b57656e7a282cfea36328d56894393c3ff6)
I thought it was pretty well documented that Benjamin Franklin had a thing for very young teenaged girls (13-14 year olds), which is part of why he was shuttled off to France as embassador. There, he was allowed to partake to his heart's content, since there was no such thing as an "age of consent" in France at the time.
That, to me, makes him brilliant and despicable. A person can be both.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
I thought it was pretty well documented that Benjamin Franklin had a thing for very young teenaged girls (13-14 year olds), which is part of why he was shuttled off to France as embassador. There, he was allowed to partake to his heart's content, since there was no such thing as an "age of consent" in France at the time.
That, to me, makes him brilliant and despicable. A person can be both.
I tried to do a quick search on that and couldn't really find anything. Any links?
Quote from: DGuller on August 29, 2012, 09:33:23 AM
What if a man is a great man because he was a genius cop who prevented 100 molestations, but then to celebrate that milestone he molested one of the boys he saved. Is he now a despicable man?
Yes, because Spock was wrong. The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
I thought it was pretty well documented that Benjamin Franklin had a thing for very young teenaged girls (13-14 year olds), which is part of why he was shuttled off to France as embassador. There, he was allowed to partake to his heart's content, since there was no such thing as an "age of consent" in France at the time.
That, to me, makes him brilliant and despicable. A person can be both.
I've never heard that. Not saying it isn't true, but I've never heard that.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 11:11:57 AM
I've never heard that. Not saying it isn't true, but I've never heard that.
Ditto.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
I thought it was pretty well documented that Benjamin Franklin had a thing for very young teenaged girls (13-14 year olds), which is part of why he was shuttled off to France as embassador. There, he was allowed to partake to his heart's content, since there was no such thing as an "age of consent" in France at the time.
That, to me, makes him brilliant and despicable. A person can be both.
I tried to do a quick search on that and couldn't really find anything. Any links?
Nope, can't find any either. I must have remembered it wrong.
He liked him some hookers, but I'm pretty sure they were age appropriate hookers.
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 11:45:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
I thought it was pretty well documented that Benjamin Franklin had a thing for very young teenaged girls (13-14 year olds), which is part of why he was shuttled off to France as embassador. There, he was allowed to partake to his heart's content, since there was no such thing as an "age of consent" in France at the time.
That, to me, makes him brilliant and despicable. A person can be both.
I tried to do a quick search on that and couldn't really find anything. Any links?
Nope, can't find any either. I must have remembered it wrong.
I found one mention of him in France with young ladies in the 18th century, but it was from a message-board post of someone ranting about pedophilia or something - didn't really read the post. :D
Quote from: Malthus on August 29, 2012, 10:17:26 AM
His *suspected* bad deeds are far worse - there is a circumstantial case that he "collected" pregnant women (or rather, paid his gang of toughs to collect them) for disection before they were in fact dead.
They were only hours away from dying, so close enough.
I found an article that claimed that he preferred older women, writing numerous letters to a young friend of his suggesting that he take up with an older woman rather than a younger one. Also, that he was in a sex club in London. Nothing about under-aged girls.
No idea where I got that from. I was pretty sure there was a stink about it some 10 years ago or so, but apparently not.
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 11:52:31 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 11:45:38 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 29, 2012, 11:07:30 AM
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
I thought it was pretty well documented that Benjamin Franklin had a thing for very young teenaged girls (13-14 year olds), which is part of why he was shuttled off to France as embassador. There, he was allowed to partake to his heart's content, since there was no such thing as an "age of consent" in France at the time.
That, to me, makes him brilliant and despicable. A person can be both.
I tried to do a quick search on that and couldn't really find anything. Any links?
Nope, can't find any either. I must have remembered it wrong.
I found one mention of him in France with young ladies in the 18th century, but it was from a message-board post of someone ranting about pedophilia or something - didn't really read the post. :D
Yeah, that was Meri.
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 11:50:26 AM
He liked him some hookers, but I'm pretty sure they were age appropriate hookers.
You see ever see the picture of his wife? No wonder.
My dear Friend,
I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entering into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissars. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.
But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:
i. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor'd with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable.
2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.
3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.
4. Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.
5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding2 only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.
6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.
7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.
8thly and Lastly They are so grateful!!
Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend. :nerd:
:showoff:
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 09:54:29 AM
A quick review on google shows this to be a reasonably dishonest version of the story. Jose's charges were dismissed because he showed he was working in Brazil at the time. And while the Casa Pia abuse allegations do not exactly cover the Portuguese justice system in glory, there have been several convictions.
Oh yes, there were convictions. Suprising indeed.
And guess what: none of the convicted has since spent one second in jail (nor did they pay anything to the victims).
And as for José, I said what the people thought when the charges were brought up, before anything else.
It's worth pointing out that the 'dates don't match' was a defence much used by the pedos, because it depends on someone remembering the
exact days they were raped - sometimes two decades earlier when they were very little - and if it is off by a couple of days the defendents can say they were not there at the time.
How well do you recall precisely in which days of which month did something happen to you when you were 9-12? (or 15?)
Anyway, the bottom line is that, while most of the population is *far* from convinced of his innocence, everyone is willing to forget, so as not to lose on the laughs. And it's that perception that is asked here.
In the context of his day and age 28 is an older woman :lol:
He was trying to eliminate the competition.
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 12:11:05 PM
In the context of his day and age 28 is an older woman :lol:
Benjamin Franklin was 39 when he wrote that letter to his friend, though supposedly his friend was much younger. No idea what he meant, then, by "older": older than himself or older than his friend.
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 11:50:26 AM
He liked him some hookers, but I'm pretty sure they were age appropriate hookers.
That was when he was a young man though. When it was Ambassador to France time he didn't have to do that anymore. But to the best of my knowledge none of his mistresses were young teens though. He did enjoy socializing with women of all ages because he found them interesting conversation and enjoyed their insight...which was sort of a scandal in itself. There is a long series of letters he exchanged with a young woman (though I think older than 13) named 'Katy' that are pretty famous.
Though I do not really see anything there that makes Franklin despicable. He clearly loved women and they him and he respected them. Heck he was calling for female sufferage after the Revolution. My main issue was how he got bored with his wife and pretty much ignored her needs for the last 15 years or so of their marriage. But that was part of the tragedy of Franklin, to the extent his life had tragedy, he never really could form close relationships with people though he kept trying and tended to fall out with the people who knew him best...like his son.
But if Meri find Franklin despicable then I shudder to think what she thinks of the other Founding Fathers he is definitly one of the least objectionable by modern standards.
Stop muddling up this thread with facts, valmy, it's unlanguish like.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2012, 12:42:49 PM
That was when he was a young man though. When it was Ambassador to France time he didn't have to do that anymore. But to the best of my knowledge none of his mistresses were young teens though. He did enjoy socializing with women of all ages because he found them interesting conversation and enjoyed their insight...which was sort of a scandal in itself. There is a long series of letters he exchanged with a young woman (though I think older than 13) named 'Katy' that are pretty famous.
Though I do not really see anything there that makes Franklin despicable. He clearly loved women and they him and he respected them. Heck he was calling for female sufferage after the Revolution. My main issue was how he got bored with his wife and pretty much ignored her needs for the last 15 years or so of their marriage. But that was part of the tragedy of Franklin, to the extent his life had tragedy, he never really could form close relationships with people though he kept trying and tended to fall out with the people who knew him best...like his son.
But if Meri find Franklin despicable then I shudder to think what she thinks of the other Founding Fathers he is definitly one of the least objectionable by modern standards.
I've already admitted that I made a mistake on this. I'm not sure what else you need me to say. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 12:59:51 PM
I've already admitted that I made a mistake on this. I'm not sure what else you need me to say. :mellow:
I enjoy babbling about Franklin and I jumped on in before I read your retraction :blush:
Still...that was at least interesting stuff right? :showoff:
I can't help but really like Franklin, for all his flaws.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2012, 01:03:09 PM
I enjoy babbling about Franklin and I jumped on in before I read your retraction :blush:
Still...that was at least interesting stuff right? :showoff:
I wouldn't know. I got caught up on the last paragraph and forgot the rest. <_<
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 29, 2012, 10:38:58 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrollcats.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2009%2F09%2Froman_polanski_doesnt_deserve_your_sympathy_trollcat.jpg&hash=6c580b57656e7a282cfea36328d56894393c3ff6)
Oh Troll Cats, I miss your daily updates. :(
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 01:12:18 PM
I wouldn't know. I got caught up on the last paragraph and forgot the rest. <_<
Oh...did you have a favorite founding father I insulted? :hmm:
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 29, 2012, 12:07:35 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 09:54:29 AM
A quick review on google shows this to be a reasonably dishonest version of the story. Jose's charges were dismissed because he showed he was working in Brazil at the time. And while the Casa Pia abuse allegations do not exactly cover the Portuguese justice system in glory, there have been several convictions.
Oh yes, there were convictions. Suprising indeed.
And guess what: none of the convicted has since spent one second in jail (nor did they pay anything to the victims).
And as for José, I said what the people thought when the charges were brought up, before anything else.
It's worth pointing out that the 'dates don't match' was a defence much used by the pedos, because it depends on someone remembering the exact days they were raped - sometimes two decades earlier when they were very little - and if it is off by a couple of days the defendents can say they were not there at the time.
How well do you recall precisely in which days of which month did something happen to you when you were 9-12? (or 15?)
Anyway, the bottom line is that, while most of the population is *far* from convinced of his innocence, everyone is willing to forget, so as not to lose on the laughs. And it's that perception that is asked here.
Again, you sure seem to be less then accurate. And I'm only going off of wiki.
Nobody has served any time in jail because appeals are outstanding. One guy was given a seven year sentence.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Again, you sure seem to be less then accurate. And I'm only going off of wiki.
Ok, I'll start using wiki to lecture you on daily canadian events too.
Quote from: Barrister on August 29, 2012, 01:39:13 PM
Nobody has served any time in jail because appeals are outstanding. One guy was given a seven year sentence.
The sentencing was two years ago (September 2010, for a case started in September 2002). And so far, there have been no new hearings, no new audiences, NADA. Nothing has happened in the so-called 'appeals'. They are simply not happening. The case is dead.
The guy with the seven year sentence is Carlos Cruz, a famous presenter. He won't do a single second of his term.
Thoguh I forgot: there IS one who was convicted to 18 years: Bibi, the keeper at the State Orphanate, who delivered the boys to the 'parties' of the wealthy. He wasn't rich nor influent. And indeed I forgot - HE has been doing time. In fact, he's in jail since the scandal broke out in the first place, over 10 years ago.
But then, everybody knew the guy with no money was going to be the only one to go to jail.
Btw, Bibi ALSO appealed. Oddly enough, that wasn't enough to prevent him from being sent straight back to his cell right after sentencing.
Rule: People with money get to do whatever they damn well want against those who are not wealthy. The law is harsh on the poor, feeble against the rich.
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2012, 12:42:49 PM
Heck he was calling for female sufferage after the Revolution.
What was he calling to have them suffer of?
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 29, 2012, 05:56:47 PM
Ok, I'll start using wiki to lecture you on daily canadian events too.
Rape scandals at orphanages are daily occurrences in Portugal? How do you live in a country with that knowledge?
:D
Quote from: Habbaku on August 29, 2012, 06:15:05 PM
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 29, 2012, 05:56:47 PM
Ok, I'll start using wiki to lecture you on daily canadian events too.
Rape scandals at orphanages are daily occurrences in Portugal? How do you live in a country with that knowledge?
:lol:
Surprisingly and although his first post was somewhat of, the last post of MSilva is actually what happened and most people I know (anedoctal) and me included share that view.
About the joke, yeah, it's not like "rape scandals at orphanages" are daily ocurrences, but powerful people not serving any jail time or being convicted, that's another story completely. :(
You know, I would normally feel bad for MS, but he really brings all this on himself.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 29, 2012, 05:56:47 PM
Rule: People with money get to do whatever they damn well want against those who are not wealthy. The law is harsh on the poor, feeble against the rich.
To be fair, Portugal is not a unique snowflake in this regard. :)
Quote from: Habbaku on August 29, 2012, 06:11:12 PM
What was he calling to have them suffer of?
Poor spelling.
Quote from: DGuller on August 29, 2012, 09:33:23 AM
What if a man is a great man because he was a genius cop who prevented 100 molestations, but then to celebrate that milestone he molested one of the boys he saved.
:lol:
A wise man once said that well-organized republics establish rewards and punishments for their citizens but never compensate one with the other.
Quote from: Martim Silva on August 29, 2012, 12:07:35 PM
Anyway, the bottom line is that, while most of the population is *far* from convinced of his innocence, everyone is willing to forget, so as not to lose on the laughs. And it's that perception that is asked here.
Actually, the question asked was what "should" happen, not what will likely happen or will be perceived to have happened. Unless you're arguing that ignoring criminal behavior from a comedian in order for him to keep entertaining people is what should happen, which I don't think you are.
I thought this thread was going to be about great men who were molested. :(
Quote from: Phillip V on August 30, 2012, 06:30:38 PM
I thought this thread was going to be about great men who were molested. :(
Maybe the snakes baby Hercules had to fight weren't really snakes? :hmm:
Quote from: merithyn on August 29, 2012, 10:40:35 AM
I thought it was pretty well documented that Benjamin Franklin had a thing for very young teenaged girls (13-14 year olds), which is part of why he was shuttled off to France as embassador. There, he was allowed to partake to his heart's content, since there was no such thing as an "age of consent" in France at the time.
That, to me, makes him brilliant and despicable. A person can be both.
You do realize that would be (especially 14) within the age of consent in a lot of modern Western countries, right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F47%2FAge_of_Consent_eu.png&hash=6e0580540ed91817535e366e89cafb68038542c8)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2012, 01:21:10 AM
Quote from: Phillip V on August 30, 2012, 06:30:38 PM
I thought this thread was going to be about great men who were molested. :(
Maybe the snakes baby Hercules had to fight weren't really snakes? :hmm:
:(
Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2012, 01:33:11 AM
You do realize that would be (especially 14) within the age of consent in a lot of modern Western countries, right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F47%2FAge_of_Consent_eu.png&hash=6e0580540ed91817535e366e89cafb68038542c8)
Now we see why Ed moved to France. :D
Quote from: Valmy on August 29, 2012, 12:42:49 PM
Quote from: HVC on August 29, 2012, 11:50:26 AM
He liked him some hookers, but I'm pretty sure they were age appropriate hookers.
That was when he was a young man though. When it was Ambassador to France time he didn't have to do that anymore. But to the best of my knowledge none of his mistresses were young teens though. He did enjoy socializing with women of all ages because he found them interesting conversation and enjoyed their insight...which was sort of a scandal in itself. There is a long series of letters he exchanged with a young woman (though I think older than 13) named 'Katy' that are pretty famous.
Though I do not really see anything there that makes Franklin despicable. He clearly loved women and they him and he respected them. Heck he was calling for female sufferage after the Revolution. My main issue was how he got bored with his wife and pretty much ignored her needs for the last 15 years or so of their marriage. But that was part of the tragedy of Franklin, to the extent his life had tragedy, he never really could form close relationships with people though he kept trying and tended to fall out with the people who knew him best...like his son.
But if Meri find Franklin despicable then I shudder to think what she thinks of the other Founding Fathers he is definitly one of the least objectionable by modern standards.
Merri is ignorant and parochial. To her a guy having sex with hookers who are above the age of consent of most of modern Europe is "despicable". Holding other human beings in bondage as chattel is not.
Why is it always that the people who shouldn't have kids breed the most?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2012, 01:41:54 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2012, 01:33:11 AM
You do realize that would be (especially 14) within the age of consent in a lot of modern Western countries, right?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2F4%2F47%2FAge_of_Consent_eu.png&hash=6e0580540ed91817535e366e89cafb68038542c8)
Now we see why Ed moved to France. :D
Spain would be a Siege's choice.
Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2012, 01:44:12 AMHolding other human beings in bondage as chattel is not.
She never said that.
Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2012, 01:45:45 AM
Spain would be a Siege's choice.
His blood calls him home. :yes:
I like reading the title as Mole Station.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 31, 2012, 02:00:11 AM
Quote from: Martinus on August 31, 2012, 01:44:12 AMHolding other human beings in bondage as chattel is not.
She never said that.
Nor did she say anything about "sex with hookers who were above the age of consent in most of modern Europe", technically. She was talking about girls as young as 13, which, going by that map, would only be above the age of consent in Spain, which is not most of Europe.
Having said that, a lot of Americans have a totally wrong idea about what age is the age of consent. The perception of the age of consent is badly skewed by the entertainment industry. Most TV and movie production takes place in California. As it happens, California, despite it's reputation as being more laid-back and liberated than most of the other states, has the age of consent set at 18, so many movies and TV shows use that as the age of consent no matter where they're set. But only 9 other states have an age of consent as high as California (according to wiki)--in fact (again according to wiki), the majority of the states have 16 as the age of consent. But people hear 18 being said to be the age of consent on TV shows all the time, and a lot of them think it really is the case everywhere in the US.
BTW, Law & Order: SVU can be a particularly bad example here. Given the nature of the crimes they deal with, age of consent can be a plot point a lot. I've seen several episodes where some guy is getting busted for having sex with a 17 year old chick, and Stabler (it's usually Stabler) will get all righteous about how the guy is going to go to prison for statutory rape (if they can't get him on anything else). Uhm, not in New York, where the show's set--the age of consent there is 17.
Mississippi seems great at first, but you have to marry her???!? That shit ain't right.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2012, 01:41:54 AM
Now we see why Ed moved to France. :D
:frog:
I could have tapped into the Canadian teen poon when I was in Windsor for business. But that was creepy. But Harper stopped that shit. :mad:
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 03:09:11 AM
Having said that, a lot of Americans have a totally wrong idea about what age is the age of consent. The perception of the age of consent is badly skewed by the entertainment industry. Most TV and movie production takes place in California. As it happens, California, despite it's reputation as being more laid-back and liberated than most of the other states, has the age of consent set at 18, so many movies and TV shows use that as the age of consent no matter where they're set. But only 9 other states have an age of consent as high as California (according to wiki)--in fact (again according to wiki), the majority of the states have 16 as the age of consent. But people hear 18 being said to be the age of consent on TV shows all the time, and a lot of them think it really is the case everywhere in the US.
Maybe that's becase being more laid back/liberated != freedom to sleep with young teens?
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 03:09:11 AM
BTW, Law & Order: SVU can be a particularly bad example here. Given the nature of the crimes they deal with, age of consent can be a plot point a lot. I've seen several episodes where some guy is getting busted for having sex with a 17 year old chick, and Stabler (it's usually Stabler) will get all righteous about how the guy is going to go to prison for statutory rape (if they can't get him on anything else). Uhm, not in New York, where the show's set--the age of consent there is 17.
Really? I always felt like they pushed for the younger ages - 16 and younger to get the maximum ick factor.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 08:05:23 AM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 03:09:11 AM
Having said that, a lot of Americans have a totally wrong idea about what age is the age of consent. The perception of the age of consent is badly skewed by the entertainment industry. Most TV and movie production takes place in California. As it happens, California, despite it's reputation as being more laid-back and liberated than most of the other states, has the age of consent set at 18, so many movies and TV shows use that as the age of consent no matter where they're set. But only 9 other states have an age of consent as high as California (according to wiki)--in fact (again according to wiki), the majority of the states have 16 as the age of consent. But people hear 18 being said to be the age of consent on TV shows all the time, and a lot of them think it really is the case everywhere in the US.
Maybe that's becase being more laid back/liberated != freedom to sleep with young teens?
Given California is percieved in most of the rest of the country, I'd guess that if you asked someone who didn't know the laws, they'd guess that California was one of the states with the lowest ages of consent, not the highest.
Quote
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 03:09:11 AM
BTW, Law & Order: SVU can be a particularly bad example here. Given the nature of the crimes they deal with, age of consent can be a plot point a lot. I've seen several episodes where some guy is getting busted for having sex with a 17 year old chick, and Stabler (it's usually Stabler) will get all righteous about how the guy is going to go to prison for statutory rape (if they can't get him on anything else). Uhm, not in New York, where the show's set--the age of consent there is 17.
Really? I always felt like they pushed for the younger ages - 16 and younger to get the maximum ick factor.
Usually, yes. But occasionally, it's a 17 year old. Sometimes it's part of a twist where neither the viewer or the cops knew earlier that a character was under 18. In that situation, it makes sense dramatically not to go really young, because it's less of a strain on the willing suspension of disbelief if a character that was, say using her older sister's identity turned out to be 17 instead of 20 than it would be it she turned out to be 13.
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Given California is percieved in most of the rest of the country, I'd guess that if you asked someone who didn't know the laws, they'd guess that California was one of the states with the lowest ages of consent, not the highest.
Disagree. I think someone would think that'd it be somewhere backwards like Kansas. Sleeping with children isn't a forwarding thinking activity.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 10:35:36 AM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Given California is percieved in most of the rest of the country, I'd guess that if you asked someone who didn't know the laws, they'd guess that California was one of the states with the lowest ages of consent, not the highest.
Disagree. I think someone would think that'd it be somewhere backwards like Kansas. Sleeping with children isn't a forwarding thinking activity.
California's reputation isn't for being "forward/ing thinking" (whatever that means), it's for being permissive.
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 29, 2012, 03:05:14 AM
Serious question, languish, and one that is strongly reminiscent of the Catholic Church's problems.
Assuming a man is lauded as great, and has justly earned his station through various achievements, what should be done if he has molested a child in a position of trust?
Assume he wasn't caught but it is known among a select few- it is out of society's eyes. Should it be kept that way? Does he cease being a great man, and become instead defined for his sinful indiscretion? Finally, consider this- the man is beyond punishment now, being quite dead, and it is only his memory that is in jeopardy.
I am very much at grief about this, as it effects numerous dear to me, and of course calls for a re-imagining of how I knew certain people and their life narratives. You can never know everything that goes into making someone who they are, that's for sure.
Is it a great crime and disservice to pretend the molestation never happened?
I know languish is fond of making light of my life and times, but i'd appreciate a serious response at this, if that was at all possible.
Lettow, to give a serious answer, I think it depends on the circumstances.
If the person is still alive, I think there is an imperative to bring the issue forward.
If the person is dead, obviously they can no longer be held to account. I can see a case for overlooking a serious crime if the victim has also passed away. For example, kosciusko is a major hero in Poland and national symbol--and for good reasons. Is it worth holding a sort of trial into his legacy based on rumors from 200 years ago? I tend to think not. However, if the victim still lives, honoring their abuser is quite disrespectful and could be seen as effectively continuing the abuse.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 31, 2012, 10:51:03 AM
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 10:35:36 AM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Given California is percieved in most of the rest of the country, I'd guess that if you asked someone who didn't know the laws, they'd guess that California was one of the states with the lowest ages of consent, not the highest.
Disagree. I think someone would think that'd it be somewhere backwards like Kansas. Sleeping with children isn't a forwarding thinking activity.
California's reputation isn't for being "forward/ing thinking" (whatever that means), it's for being permissive.
Again it is common to think of child brides in backwards states, not California.
Besides, by hell it ain't. California is one of the most forward thinking states in our lot.
Maybe, maybe not. But that's not the reputation it has. Teach is spot on.
That California is known for permitting people to sleep with young teens? :unsure:
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 09:30:18 PM
Besides, by hell it ain't. California is one of the most forward thinking states in our lot.
Being "forward thinking" is usually something one thinks of himself rather than to use to describe others. And considering it means something different to each person you might ask, it's not a very useful descriptor anyway.
First thing most people will think of about California laws is pot legalization. This dovetails with the reputations of LA and San Francisco for indulging in hedonism and there you have it, California gets a reputation for being a place where anything goes. Whether it's more accurate to call California forward thinking rather than permissive doesn't matter, nor does what Californians think of themselves. Its *reputation* is what people in the rest of the country and the world think of them, right or wrong.
I actually understand what you're saying about the country viewing California as permissive. What I'm not sure about is whether or not that extends into permissive attitudes towards sleeping with children - as it is some of the more conservative states (that would tend to view California that as morally bankrupt) that allow adults to sleep with those who are 16 (and or get married). I guess it is possible that they hypocritically believe that California is eve more permissive thatn they are in that regard.
Quote from: garbon on August 31, 2012, 10:35:36 AM
Quote from: dps on August 31, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Given California is percieved in most of the rest of the country, I'd guess that if you asked someone who didn't know the laws, they'd guess that California was one of the states with the lowest ages of consent, not the highest.
Disagree. I think someone would think that'd it be somewhere backwards like Kansas. Sleeping with children isn't a forwarding thinking activity.
Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2012, 08:25:44 AM
Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.
I don't have any buddies in NAMBLA.
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2012, 08:23:01 AM
I actually understand what you're saying about the country viewing California as permissive. What I'm not sure about is whether or not that extends into permissive attitudes towards sleeping with children - as it is some of the more conservative states (that would tend to view California that as morally bankrupt) that allow adults to sleep with those who are 16 (and or get married). I guess it is possible that they hypocritically believe that California is eve more permissive thatn they are in that regard.
I don't see how hypocrisy has anything to do with it. People make basic assumptions about things they don't actually know and sometimes turn out to be wrong. I'm also not sure too much weight should be given to state laws like this when forming an opinion of the people as the differences between states are frequently the result of historical circumstance/accident.
The totally should be considering at a) we're talking about allowed age of consent and b) you'd think that if this really cause such moral outrage, people would be working to change what their laws said. Hell conservatives are all up in everybody else's business moralizing at them - why shouldn't they look at some of the laws in their own backyard first? ;)
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2012, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2012, 08:25:44 AM
Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.
I don't have any buddies in NAMBLA.
All you homos get judged togther. You, NAMBLA, Perez Hilton, Martinus, all the same.
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2012, 08:45:30 AM
The totally should be considering at a) we're talking about allowed age of consent and b) you'd think that if this really cause such moral outrage, people would be working to change what their laws said. Hell conservatives are all up in everybody else's business moralizing at them - why shouldn't they look at some of the laws in their own backyard first? ;)
I haven't seen much in the way of moral outrage about Californians sleeping with teenagers, other than the occasional rape of a 13 year old by a famous director.
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2012, 08:48:22 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2012, 08:28:41 AM
Quote from: Neil on September 01, 2012, 08:25:44 AM
Tell that to your buddies in NAMBLA.
I don't have any buddies in NAMBLA.
All you homos get judged togther. You, NAMBLA, Perez Hilton, Martinus, all the same.
Whatever dude.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2012, 08:55:59 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2012, 08:45:30 AM
The totally should be considering at a) we're talking about allowed age of consent and b) you'd think that if this really cause such moral outrage, people would be working to change what their laws said. Hell conservatives are all up in everybody else's business moralizing at them - why shouldn't they look at some of the laws in their own backyard first? ;)
I haven't seen much in the way of moral outrage about Californians sleeping with teenagers, other than the occasional rape of a 13 year old by a famous director.
So they don't have moral outrage and are quite okay with adults sleeping with 16 year olds? ;)
Quote from: garbon on September 01, 2012, 08:56:59 AM
So they don't have moral outrage and are quite okay with adults sleeping with 16 year olds? ;)
Unless it's their daughter. :P
I am glad that states are passing laws that increasingly make it harder for anyone under age 18 to work, drive, or have their own bank accounts, let alone drink or smoke. But they are old enough to be fucked. :cool:
Well, 3 of the 5 things you mentioned are more dangerous than fucking. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 01, 2012, 09:36:42 AM
Well, 3 of the 5 things you mentioned are more dangerous than fucking. :hmm:
Depends on what you fuck.
Quote from: Martinus on August 29, 2012, 09:52:08 AM
Wikipedia authors do not go to dinners with ambassadors. :contract:
:hmm:
On the other hand, at least an ambassador was involved in the Casa Pia case.
As for the reaction in Portugal, not being surrounded by idiot fans of Herman and Carlos Cruz meant I never head the "Screw the kids, I like them" Martim mentioned.
I thought Herman had escaped on a technicality (he was 15!) but my memory was wrong.
I remember watching an old interview in the early '80s of the Portuguese president back then, Ramalho Eanes, saying he would tackle the issue but he later recognised he was naive in believing the people in charge there would put an end to the abuses.