Woody Allen is Alleged Pedophile - Hollywood Outraged

what are the statutes of limitations for this to be actually considered for a criminal case? or civil case? parden my ignorance.

i will say this in regards to the way the accuser went about making the accusations. why do this through social media's, television and newspapers? why not file suit and go for it in open court?

i understand that part of the reason is the 'public shaming' aspect of it, but wouldn't that all come along with a trial, either civil or or criminal. plus, you'd also accomplish more in the court of public opinion as the details came to light, along with an actual sentence being handed out or civil penalties being paid.

but, then again, the accuser could be afraid that the polanski scenario could just as easily play out again or woody even being declaired innocent despite being guilty(the oj scenario).

all that being said, there is also the chance that he actually is innocent.

either way, guilty or innocent, a public court case would still better advance the "false" accusers m.o. of destroying or attempting to destroy his personal image.

 

A couple of points:

One - this was investigated back close to the time it was alleged. Reports indicate that the police and prosecutors found probable cause. But that there was not enough evidence to actually take to trial. The prosecutor at the time said as much and blamed a faulty investigation. Farrow and Allen were going through a divorce and apparently the psychiatrists the State used all sided with the idea that the abuse did not happen and that the child was being used as a pawn in the bitter divorce.

Second - Not sure why this should turn into an attack on the "Hollywood establishment." Woody Allen has never been close to Hollywood. While there are actors and actresses you might can call out - like Farrow did to Diane Keaton and a few others - the real movers and shakers in Hollywood have little-to-nothing to do with Allen.

 

This is baloney, especially that last line, as your whole post was dogmatic blather. The basic problems were three in the OP:

1. It followed the typical right wing pattern of not caring about some outrage until it became a tool thought to be effective in criticizing liberals. Had someone, or you, given a rip about the actual acts by Allen when the people you are criticizing were supposed to be making their statements, then I might buy the argument.

2. The second typical, and faulty, right wing tactic was employed in the use of false equivalency. Conflating the Catholic Church scandal with Allen was utterly absurd and in no way similar.

3. You are switching the focus to a tacit support for a pedophile when the argument suits you, the sort of clumsy logical trap you always try to create with these questions. By creating a meandering set of rules and logic, you attempt to create a scenario that the opposing political views must agree with you or face being associated with degenerate types/positions. So, when someone says, "Hey, this is bullshit" to your original post, then they immediately become defenders and enablers of a pedophile, when this has nothing to do with a pedophile.

Convince me this thread has anything to do with a pedophile and I'll condemn that every time. Until then, I'm focusing on the political hit piece in the OP.

 

you just condensed the entire political playbook of every progressive/democratic/liberal cause i have witnessed in my lifetime, into less that 50 words. i know that wasn't your intent, but you accomplished it despite yourself. bravo, sir.

 

That's interesting, because I see it used all the time for conservative arguments.

 

granted, but if you could learn to change the channel, every so often, you would realize that while you've been focusing on the minor league'ers(sp?) pretending to play baseball, you've been missing out on watching the pro's play it a whole lot better and with a lot less effort.

 

odd that you're shallow AND unoriginal. Shocking, I say.

From now on, can you just list for us the time and channel?

 

It was my argument originally that he copied. Holy shit you are ****ing dense.

 

Sure, sure.

 

i didn't cop it, i pointed out that you accused tenny of using the "torn from the page" playbook tactic of the left and you failed to even realize it. don't get pissy because i held up a mirror.

 

And, I felt that was incorrect, part of arguing. You also took my statement about what I said and applied it to liberals. I simply went back to my statement from the previous post. I certainly wasn't unoriginal in my opinion.

 

i gracefully accept your concession, saracastic as it may be.

 

I'm fine with arguing and difference of opinion, the condescension is what annoys me and BPV specializes in that. I'm surprised he deigned to speak with such an inferior government worker such as myself. I guess you got caught in the crossfire.

 

no you didn't you ****ing idiot. you paraphrased to fit your ridiculous worldview and it happened to match the ****ing idiocy you regularly plagiarize to foist upon us here.

Your fantasy brilliance remains amusing nonetheless.

I can't believe with all that you choose to be a gov't working union douche - which you clearly don't have to justify.

 

Shows what you know; I'm not even in a union. The rest is your usual bullshit; no argument, all insults. I suppose being a [Penis] suffices for an actual semblance of ideas for you, but I'm not remotely cowed.

 

this what i have come to love about this site. lol

 

All this and I think that Woody Allen is a creepy possible, or probable, pedophile. I'm just not sure what "Hollywood stars" in the last week should have done on the matter; release a movie about it, host a telethon, make a press release?

 

Definitely a perv. I think we can all agree on that.

 

Agree on something? Hell no! Guy's a saint!

 

the irony in most of your comments on this site is damn near tangible. Stop trying so hard - you know you have nothing to prove. You even told me so.