Woody Allen is Alleged Pedophile - Hollywood Outraged

Either way, The Purple Rose of Cairo was just on MGM.

Great movie

 

Right on the money. Excellent work.

 

1. I have a well-established policy of that any accusation of pedophilia warrants inspection, and for the punishment of those convicted of commiting it. This policy knows no bounds, political or otherwise. If you can find an example of my only expressing care / outrage when directed or involving a Democrat, or ignoring those directed at or involving Republicans, please offer such proof. I only care about which of my arguments you choose to believe insofar as your agreement forces me to deconstruct said position and start anew. You're like my bumper guard from wandering into stupidity.

2. I was almost certain that there were a great many parallels between the Catholic Sex Scandal and the recent allegations against Woody Allen - namely, that both involved the sexual torture of a child. Where they differ is that Hollywood saw no qualms in expressing outrage and calling for justice to be done against both the clergy who committed the acts, and the church who sheltered and protected them - and quite rightfully - but is curiosity silent, uncaring even, of these allegations against Allen.

3. Which part of my argument "tacitly supports a pedophlile?" And it's not a "logical trap" as you claim (although I did smile at your calling it "clumsy" when your stupid ass would always be the first one I'd be digging out), but merely the truth of the matter. That you don't like this truth, and its absolutist underpinnings, is your problem, and that which compels you to routinely enter these forays in order to fee my argue that dark is light, that up is down, and that everyone else is just too dumb, racist or insensitive to "get it" like you do. Simply, I've neither mistaken you to be a part of the Hollywood establishment nor as a counsel to Mr. Allen - so what is it, exactly, that makes you feel as if you need to defend anything?

 

I laughed. I assume you recognize the silliness but needed the solidarity.

 

I should have just let this stand as my retort to Un's idiocy.

IP's agreement is infinitely more damning than anything I could have written, however flowery, biting and long.

 

Give him a lifetime achievement Golden Globe Award and spend 15 minute swooning and fawning over him on prime time TV on a major network. That'll show him their disdain.

 

1. Who doesn't have a standing policy that child sexual abuse should be investigated? Is that something unique unto yourself? The point was clearly defined that you, nor anyone else, made any mention of the Allen matter until it became time to use it against someone else. Perhaps those people have a standing policy, as well.

2. On one side we have a massive conspiracy of silence and cover up of thousands of priests and church officials on six different continents over a period of decades by one of the most influential institutions in the world, resulting in massive numbers of arrests and millions of dollars in damages. On the other side, we have a squirrel-like director who has been accused of child molestation with a previous investigation into the matter that was inconclusive. Yes, they're pretty much the same. And you litter your posts with references to my stupidity. Please.

3. You said "Back to the resident liberals defending an obvious pedophile" (Probably only the second most ridiculous comment in this thread behind BPV's "Conservative voters want no part of whiny political loudmouths"), i.e. agree with me or you are simply defending a pedophile. There is nothing absolutist in your writings in any event, just a perception and a critique based upon your predisposed political leanings. And, I've never called anyone racist, exceedingly few dumb (far less than you or BPV) and only had the gall to oppose some trenchant right wing views. As I said, that's shit that's made up about me, especially the racist part and taken for fact. Go back and try to find these posts that fit your description of me. Good luck.

Additionally, the fact that you put in the line about my idea that "everyone else is too dumb...to 'get it'" is awfully, awfully rich considering your littering of commentary against the "board liberals".

 

Re: 2-

Catholic Sex Scandal (CSC)- Church actively covers for perps and silences accusers
Woody Allen Accusation (WAA)- Hollywood does not actively cover anything up (as they aren't even an organization) nor attempts to silence accuser

CSS- Epidemic
WAA- An individual

CSS- Proven in court with testimony from multiple individuals, confessions, as well as physical evidence
WAA- As yet, not proven in court, only one testimony which is the accusation itself

CSS- Until recently, some known pedophile priests were still with the church
WAA- Has not been charged, let alone convicted, of anything


Some interesting information I didn't realize was that his ex-wife was 19 when she married her first husband, Frank Sinatra. Her accusations of molestation of her daughter didn't come until after she was divorced from Allen and found out he was having a relationship with their adult adopted daughter (who claims she is as responsible for the relationship as Allen). THEN these accusations came up, and there was not any evidence ( aside from the accusing testimony) that they occurred. It is plausible to some degree that there is some petty vindictiveness in these claims.

Now, I'm not saying he isn't a pedophile. He famously "joked" about sex with 12 year olds 40 years ago. And he married his daughter. And he is a creepy bastard. But I see no reason to act like an abstract entity known as "Hollywood" should all react as one to this dude. Your premise is CLEARLY political in nature, no matter how much you protest to the contrary, call me names, or insult my character by insinuating I would do anything to be a pedophile apologist. Slander away. Lash out at "Hollywood." This is a political witch hunt and smear job on an abstract entity under the disguise of a plea for justice in a crime that may or may not have occurred.

You want an investigation? Cool. That is fine by me. You want to pretend like a cabal of liberal icons are keeping that from happening? Hahaha!

 

Most of those cases were about 99% victim testimony. So, obviously, they were all wrongful convictions.

 

http://observer.com/2014/02/j-d-roman-and-woody-why-great-men-get-a-pass-from-their-peers/

 

google search of "pedophilia in catholic church" 507,000 results in 0.27 seconds
google search of "pedophilia in hollywood" 449,000 results in 0.24 seconds

 

Victim testimony with some sort of verifiable factual content. Not just an accusation, I assume. If so, how can you tell if someone is innocent?

 

google search of "snowball pedophilia" 2,040,000 results in .39 seconds.

What are we demonstrating with this?

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...y-allen-s-feud-with-mia-and-ronan-farrow.html



http://www.popmatters.com/post/178227-the-case-against-and-against-woody-allen/

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertai...-claims-woody-allen-planted-article-1.1601295

Another take on this, if anyone is interested. Turns out there was an investigation, and they didn't find any evidence other than the accusation.

Lawvol, Tenny D, any one else: are you telling me that an accusation and an investigation are not enough? What more must happen? If you think an accusation is all that is necessary, please explain.

lawvol specificially, what evidence is needed to convict someone. If only an accusation, what is to prevent false/programmed/coerced accusations?

 

Umm, no. They investigated and said there was probable cause but declined to prosecute to "avoid putting the victim through a trial." Child sex cases are handled much, much different now than they were 20 years ago.

And, once again, no, a simple allegation is not enough. I've already explained the process you go through with safeguarding from prosecuting a trumped up case.

 

Can you link me your source on them having probable cause (other than the guy who said it in an interview and was subsequently disciplined for it), and what it was based on? In one of the links I just shared, they mentioned that 3 examiners found no evidence of abuse and indicated that was the reason no charges were filed. Also, does probable cause mean guilt? Isn't every case brought to trial done so because of "probable cause," yet 10 to 40 % of cases do not result in conviction as I understand it (i.e. they are found innocent).

The process you explained:

So how is this not what happened in 1992? Do you not find it at least worth noting that these allegations occurred during a messy divorce, right as Allen's relationship with his now wife became known to his ex-wife? Or that 3 examiners found no evidence for abuse? A 7 year old who lives with an angry, hurt mother who is furious with the child's father can easily lead to confabulation. Before the accusations, Allen even indicated as much based on what the child would say to him during visitations ("mommy said to tell you I hate you", etc)


I am not saying he is innocent. I am saying the story line that this is a cover-up or that he is getting special treatment doesn't fly given that this WAS investigated, and it isn't as clear-cut as what has been presented in the media.

 

i was demonstrating a parallel.

how about you, that you overlook spelling?

 

that's a fair article and i can appreciate the point the author is making. except the part where they lump r. kelly in with those sicko's. because i like r. kelly's music.

 

Are you referring to the state's attorney?