User Profile

Gmarley

Recent Comments
Responses to Comments

Responses to Comments from Gmarley

I hear ya. And I think we can all agree that this situation is completely ridiculous and could never happen, so.

Permalink for Napoleon Complex's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 2, 2009 11:39 AM
Score = -1

It's not doing good things to gain the right to do bad things. The bad thing occured BEFORE the good things. Now, he didn't go back and undo the bad thing ... however, that becomes a time travel ethical dillema of "is not going back in time and preventing a bad thing ITSELF of bad thing?" In which case, he'd be doing the original rape all over again, but also doing every bad thing ever (except the things he went back to prevent). And of course, that then begs the question of if every bad thing being averted actually made things better, but that's going into "speculative fiction" teritory that gets even farther away from the original moral issue brought up by this post.
It isn't "I did great stuff, so I can haz rapeburger?". It is questioning if, having raped someone, is it ever possible to do good/be a good person, no matter how hard you try. Unfortunately, the fact that this hypothetical gives him a way to actually stop the thing he did that forced him to "need" to do all those good things makes it FAIL as an analogy. Otherwise though, it teaches us that once you rape, you might as well do whatever you want from that point forward, because feeling bad and doing good things will never change the fact. You are doomed, cursed, etc ... so just keep on raping I guess.

Permalink for Walter Kovacs's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 2, 2009 12:21 AM
Score = 0

Brave vs. gross is a pretty weird and irrelevant false dichotomy, since one can be cowardly and truthful or gross and truthful or a brave gross not-getter of things. Rape is not just not brave and very gross, it is an act that denies the victim's humanity and it is inexcusable. So yeah, I agree with tibmalian and Gabe and GOB Bluth.

Permalink for rk's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 1, 2009 8:16 PM
Score = 5

I need to preface this by saying that I am stoned and deliriously exhausted right now so what I say may not make sense. Also, I am a Utilitarian in most ethical cases, and Kantian in some, but I judge things on a case-by-case basis. Moving on.
I understand that anyone's reaction to someone's expressing their approval of child-rape is somewhere along the lines of "You terrible person, creepshow, get away from me". And that's good.
In the Polanski case, he drugged and raped a young girl. He took away control over her body because he valued his own twisted sexual desire over her right to NOT be raped. It's pretty black-and-white.
But, when we get into killing Hitler territory, things get much more complicated [durh]. Now, I've already said I'm mostly a Utilitarian, and I assume y'all know what that is, so. Next..
The reason why everyone [except for Polanski and everyone's favorite directors, sad faces all around] thinks child-rape is wrong is because it harms an innocent person, and violates their basic autonomy. Right?
So, let's assume that Polanski somehow manages to travel back in time, KILL HITLER, stop genocide, and generally make the world a much better place. By doing all of this, he saves millions of lives and prevents an immeasurable amount of human suffering. But he still rapes a child.
The reason why we know genocide is wrong is the same reason why we know rape is wrong: it harms innocent people and violates people's autonomy. RIgh?
Now, on the one hand, we have the violation of a child. And on the other hand, we have the prevention of millions of rapes and murders and cases of torture; prevention of millions of more violations.
So, we have this really weird and terrible quandary. Nobody wants to condone child-rape. But no one wants to condone genocide and wide-spread murder/torture/rape. As awful as it is to say, I'm going to have to say it: one raped child is a small price to pay for millions of unraped and un-murdered people.

Permalink for Napoleon Complex's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 1, 2009 11:27 PM
Score = 1

I hardly think this is the case. These film makers don't think they're above the law. These people are Polanski's colleagues, peers and a lot of them are probably good friends of his. So I don't find it surprising that they are all backing him, not in the sense that they are supporting rape but because they are fully aware of the torment that he's about to go through if he gets extradited. Just because they're film makers doesn't mean their public opinion on the matter is void. I think that's a pretty ridiculous.

Permalink for simonsays's comment on Fantastic Mr. Fox Continues To Look (Wait For It) Fantastic at October 1, 2009 8:43 AM
Score = -1

Aren't all of us posters doing exactly what "Hollywood" is doing? I mean, none of us is truly involved in this Polanski business. There appear to be hundreds of people signing their names to this public record definitively stating that Polanski is a rapist who must be brought to justice. Not one person here knows what happened, however. I BELIEVE all the ideas about what happened stem from either the alleged victim's grand jury testimony or some third or fourth or millionth party source. The trouble with Grand Jury testimony is that it's uncontested. You can't use it in a court of law because the defendant didn't get a right to cross examine the witness. Grand jury testimony is only sufficient to get an indictment, which is an accusatory instrument and not evidence of a crime. If it's true that Polanski agreed to plead guilty to a crime under the impression that he would get probation and no jail sentence, then discovered that he was going to get jail time and fled, well, I can understand his fear. He was never tried in a court of law!
I've gotten away from my original point. It's weak to complain about Hollywood publishing their opinions on a blog. I think that was basically my point.

Permalink for ModestAlfred's comment on Fantastic Mr. Fox Continues To Look (Wait For It) Fantastic at October 1, 2009 10:50 AM
Score = 2

The WWF didn't make this. The Brazilian ad agency DDB made it as a promotion for WWF, which WWF summarily rejected for obvious reasons. The agency left the WWF logo on it and submitted it to an awards ceremony in Israel (I believe), where it actually won a prize. WWF has come out denouncing the ad, and the people involved with the ad agency have been let go.

The more you know.

Permalink for dafs's comment on This Is Worse Than 9/11 at September 3, 2009 9:47 AM
Score = 35

Recents Comments from Gmarley

I don't really gush but if this girl's using her voice, I'm probably gonna like it.

on New Jolie Holland - "Mexico City" (Stereogum Premiere) at August 9, 2008 3:25 PM
Score = 0

So if I'm Putin, do I feel bad about myself? I don't think so... More importantly, if I'm the Pope, do I wonder, to the point of trying, if I can actually shoot lightning out of my hands? You better believe it.

on That's Your Boyfriend: The President? at November 5, 2009 9:54 AM
Score = 14

The taped-altered-self-personality-bonanza was probably just Flight of the Navigator on the green room television. If that's the case, I know exactly what this lady is talking about.

on Dr. Phil Sued Over More Perfect Crimes at October 14, 2009 9:35 AM
Score = 3

I'm a wedding photographer. This might come across as someone taking the emotional experience of an internet-stranger way too seriously, but I NEED TO DO THIS. No one decision about your wedding is nearly as important as you and your wife-to-be just being obviously happy. If the florist is like "THE FLOWERZ NEED ATTENTIONZ" say "THEN ATTENT AND LEAVE ME ALONE." (it's been a depressing season...)

In reply to bearface's comment on Jim And Pam Got Married! And Thursday Night TV Open Thread! at October 9, 2009 11:10 AM
Score = 7

The Feldman Hanukkah e-cards just keep getting weirder and weirder....

on That's Your Boyfriend: Corey Feldman at October 6, 2009 4:11 PM
Score = 33

Oh... Well, if you see above, I distance myself from the "once a monster, always a monster" school. But this is a good lesson in why time travel complexities don't really serve ethical "what ifs" very well because, after all, when is the Island?

In reply to Walter Kovacs's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 2, 2009 12:32 AM
Score = 2

I hear you, but this is getting nuts, because it isn't about our choice, it's about Roman's. We are not the arbiter of people's decisions, it is not "our" choice to send Roman back in time to kill hitler, and it is not our choice to "allow" him to then go rape the girl. There's no cosmic rule, "crisis averted, get the girl." I guess I think it's become too "either/or" for something that's practical nonsense. I think it's important though, and interesting. I'm a big softie when it comes to redemption though. If he rapes the girl, then he must go try to kill hitler to earn our forgiveness, and he must be given the opportunity for redemption. Conversely, if a man first becomes a hero by defeating evil, and then goes on to become evil, he must be judged by the standards that made him a hero in the first place. FART JOKEZ.

In reply to Napoleon Complex's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 2, 2009 12:01 AM
Score = 3

Hmm... I think I disagree here. Making difficult moral compromise isn't the same as what's being discussed here. This is doing good things in order to earn the right to do bad things. I agree, the world is a gnarly place, but what would happen to us if all of our drives and motives to do good became so exploitable as to be motivated by the possible reward of being able to do evil? I'm starting to freak myself out. This Polanski business has gone far enough! And I really can't speak to the idea of whether or not I'd want the holocaust to be prevented in order for someone to rape a child, because I'm just too big of a Lost fan to go there.

In reply to That One's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 1, 2009 9:16 PM
Score = 0

Those were two different ideas, not displaying a dichotomy. Just saying.

In reply to rk's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 1, 2009 8:45 PM
Score = 0

I'm with ya tib. Walrus... :(.... That was not a brave thing to say. That was very gross.

In reply to tibmalian's comment on You Can Make It Up: Roman Polanski Builds A Time Machine at October 1, 2009 8:04 PM
Score = 5

I can accept that weakness because this is just a discussion. I'm about to go out and go to work and get ready for a busy weekend that is totally Polanski and rape free, KNOCK ON WOOD. My main concern, and I may have not highlighted this, is Polanski was in a unique financial position to be able to skip out on the proper channels of recourse and individual protections that are built into the legal system. I'm not about to say the system is perfect, but if 99.999% of us have to live with it, so does he. If there are international avenues that allowed him to get away with it forever, well, that's tough for us. But, he got snagged, so that's tough for him.

In reply to ModestAlfred's comment on Fantastic Mr. Fox Continues To Look (Wait For It) Fantastic at October 1, 2009 11:01 AM
Score = 2