- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Should a pedophile be able to make movies?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Should a pedophile be able to make movies?; 'Jeepers Creepers' director Victor Salva | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Aug 30 2017, 05:43 AM (2,419 Views) | |
|
|
Aug 30 2017, 02:41 PM Post #16 |
|
I think it's perfectly reasonable to boycott the movie if you don't want that money to benefit a pedophile. |
 |
 
|
| EMIYA | Aug 30 2017, 03:27 PM Post #17 |
"I am the bone of my sword."
|
But its not benefiting a pedophile, its benefiting a director and more so it's benefiting a movie and all the people who have worked on it. This is like boycotting Rosemary's Baby from the National Film Registry because it would be supporting a movie that was directed by a pedophile. Sorry, what Roman Polanski did in the past was bad but Rosemary's Baby has nothing to do with it. Rosemary's Baby is still considered to be a great film. So great that it was deemed historically significant. Again, if people can't separate the art from the artist, that's their fault. People have a "right" to boycott if they wish but I certainly don't see it as the "right" thing to do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2017, 03:36 PM Post #18 |
|
??? The rest of your argument I can agree with since I never claimed it was the right thing to do. I just don't understand how you could be upset about someone else's decision to boycott something. I wouldn't personally boycott a movie that I was interested in seeing if the director was a pedophile, but I also wouldn't look down on someone else for doing so. I can completely sympathize with abhorrence toward a proven pedophile and not wanting to give a single dime to a person like that. I'm not interested in Jeepers Creepers anyway, so this doesn't really apply to me. |
|
|
|
| + Emmeth | Aug 30 2017, 03:53 PM Post #19 |
I ♥ Yoeri
|
I think what EMIYA is saying is that most people keep their private life and work life separate. |
 My Twitch Page | |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 30 2017, 03:55 PM Post #20 |
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
Yeah, no. It IS a sexuality no matter how you slice it and no matter how much you don't like the idea of it.
Not all of them, which is exactly why you're argument is wrong because you're taking every situation as the same, every paedophile is a vile evil person who's constantly looking for a victim?
Again, paedophilia is a sexuality. People can't help it any more than someone can help being gay. I again ask you what's the difference if someone has murdered someone and did their time, should they never be allowed near people again on the off chance they suddenly murder them or is that an unreasonable assumption? Though generally I agree this person shouldn't be left unsupervised with children. And I'm defending paedophiles on the grounds that they're not necessarily evil people by default, nobody can just choose not to be attracted to something. Just because acting on it is a problem when it comes to paedophilia doesn't mean they never deserve to have someone in their corner. And also I'm defending someone who has paid for their crimes, don't phrase that as though I'm condoning his previous actions. Molesting children is f***ing disgusting and I wouldn't be friends with this man but I also wouldn't say he's not allowed most rights everyone else has. Being a sex offender and making movies aren't in relation to each other at all, just in this case it would obviously be wise to make sure any children are protected. Though I should think that ought to go for every movie set anyway since it's a disturbingly common thing. |
 Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
| * Yu Narukami | Aug 30 2017, 04:01 PM Post #21 |
|
Izanagi!
|
Most people do, but a lot of people don't, and that's perfectly fine as well. I'm not really that concerned about enjoying media that's born from reprehensible people for the most part, but I can totally understand people who don't want to watch or give money to a project who has such people playing a major role in it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2017, 04:06 PM Post #22 |
|
Did I ever say that it wasn't? Every argument you make is a straw man.
Straw man. That was not my argument.
False dichotomy. Seriously, google logical fallacies. Your arguments are rampant with them. It's like you're arguing with someone who doesn't exist. And yes, of course that's an unreasonable assumption. If you put a murderer around a bunch of people out in the open, what are the chances that he would murder someone? That doesn't even make sense, and the fact that you're trying to force it into making sense is laughable. Let me explain why this is a false dichotomy to you, briefly. No two murderers are the same. They each have their own motives, and every murder case is original in some way. Putting a murderer in the midst of other people will do nothing to stimulate that. A pedophile is someone who lusts after children--period. They should not be allowed near children again. Google "false dichotomy." This thread is about proven pedophiles, not pedophilia in general. You are straw-manning this entire thread to suit your own strange agenda.
Neither would I. Who are you arguing with here? Is there a ghost in the room? |
|
|
|
| Tinny | Aug 30 2017, 04:33 PM Post #23 |
|
We have a court system to decide punishment, and while you have every right to not go see a movie that you think is being done by a bad person, you do not have the right to punish them eternally by legally barring them from movies or other jobs. This does apply to racist people, if say, the people like David Duke tried to make a movie, I would in no way stop them from doing so, and I don't think any legal action should be taken against them, especially when they've already been punished according to the law. In addition, I don't like the implications this carries for other people, former criminals of all kinds should also be able to get a job, rather than being forced out of the workforce because they once upon a time was arrested for something and now are more likely to return to a life of crime because of an exclusion from legal society. Also, I would say that demonizing people for having certain fetishes or 'tastes' is no better than trying to create a law against sodomy. As long as they can avoid acting on it in a way that would constitute sexual harassment or rape (in this case anything sexual with a child), they should be given the same rights as anyone else. Edited by Tinny, Aug 30 2017, 04:36 PM.
|
 Above signature created by Graffiti 
| |
|
|
| EMIYA | Aug 30 2017, 05:28 PM Post #24 |
|
"I am the bone of my sword."
|
Because it really makes no sense and it comes off as a petty sort of revenge despite the fact that Salva's crime, which has already been deemed, "paid" for has nothing to do with his movie. This boycott basically ended up canceling the early screening. There was this huge deal for the movie and so many people were eager to see it, having brought tickets. It was the big premier of the movie and because some people's petty justice desire, all of that is done. The movie apparently is only going to be getting a limited release around Sept. 26th. At this point, let's forget Salva for a moment. This boycott and ultimately cancellation is just a big middle finger to not only all the fans who have wanted to see this movie come into fruition for a long time, but to all the other people who have worked on the film. If for one reason or another Salva himself has to be punished, then punish him, not the rest of the people. The movie is made, the actors, producers, writers, etc have all put their effort into it. Let us see the film. If one doesn't want to support Salva, then at least support the others who have put work into the film. What point is there in this "justice" if everyone else has to suffer because of it?
It's not just that, its the fact that Salva's crimes of 30 years ago and his movie have nothing to do with each other and by cancelling the premier, you're ultimately hurting far more people than if you just let the movie play. Nobody is watching Jeepers Creepers so they can support a pedophile, they do it to support a movie they like. That would be like me saying people who watch the Saw franchise support people getting murdered by death traps and thus we should boycott it. Or saying someone who watches Friday the 13 supports psycho murderers. It's like, what are you talking about? Edited by EMIYA, Aug 30 2017, 05:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2017, 06:07 PM Post #25 |
|
Hey everyone, if you boycott Chick-fil-A because the president is anti-gay, you'd better stop it now! Think of the other employees!
Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Aug 30 2017, 06:08 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Bad User | Aug 30 2017, 06:30 PM Post #26 |
 
|
People, there is no more 'Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot' justice anymore. I think people forget that. Also, for some crimes, there are certain 'rights' restrictions' to prevent them in the future. Anything beyond law is 'filler'. Also, some are mistaking business for private life. 'Legal entity' is not the same as 'physical person'. The latter one is a human, the first, a business entity consisting of several people, regardless of who the people occupying some positions are. Business life =/= the opinions of people who are conducting that. Maybe one is homophobic but runs a business that sponsores LGBT. Just sayian'. I understand the feelings behind that, still, sacrificing a mere product that benefits a lot of people, for a physical person's deed is not only unrelated, but not legal. I agree with what other people above me stated, so Imma not emphasise anything anymore. |
| |
|
|
|
| + Steve | Aug 30 2017, 07:01 PM Post #27 |
|
Greetings. I will be your waifu this season.
|
How is that a strawman? You said they aren't comparable, except that they are. The only difference aside from the subject matter is that paedophilia is obviously more unconventional and illegal to partake in.
In reference to what I said you presented that like all murderers are the same and by extension all paedophiles are the same and that any of their actions are forever to be deemed unforgivable...so what the crap is the point in the law then? Why do we bother putting anyone in prison if they're never rehabilitated enough to be in society again?
Extend your astounding logic to paedophiles then, if you put one in a room with a bunch of kids they'd automatically just go rabid and attack them? They can't possibly learn from their mistakes and choose not to do anything or not even feel a desire to?
So every heterosexual lusts after the opposite sex and constantly wants to have sex with them? Is that how it works? You're basically saying anyone who does something bad is condemned to always be on the verge of doing it again and what possible proof do you have for that being the case with paedophiles specifically? "Muh fallacies and muh dichotomies!" isn't an argument, explain what is so different when it comes to paedophiles versus anything else and why people can't ever move on from anything they did versus anything else. 'cause all it really is is how you look at paedophilia in your head, not the law or anything to do with the system. |
|
Definitely not a succubus, fear not | |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2017, 07:23 PM Post #28 |
|
Steve... This is an argument about proven pedophiles i.e. pedophiles who have committed crimes, not pedophilia in general. It has never been about pedophilia in general. You tried turning it into that. |
|
|
|
| Tinny | Aug 30 2017, 07:25 PM Post #29 |
|
You may want to read more closely to the post then.
Regardless of how you feel this tackles your argument, this very clearly applies even if the subject in question refers to a convicted rapist. To be honest the more I look at it the more I'm confused as to how you thought he was talking only about pedophiles in general. Edited by Tinny, Aug 30 2017, 07:30 PM.
|
|
Above signature created by Graffiti
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 30 2017, 07:30 PM Post #30 |
|
Can you run that by me again? Because I'm really not understanding your point. My entire point has been keep proven pedophiles away from children. That's it.
Oh, I don't know, maybe his random comparison to homosexuality? I'm not the only one who had that impression reading through his posts. Edited by Doggo Champion 2k17, Aug 30 2017, 07:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:54 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy