Victor Salva is a convicted child molester who is still denying that he did anything wrong when he had "consentual oral sex" with a 12-yr-old child when Salva was 30. He took video while doing this. There is no doubt about this - the films he took forced him into a guilty plea. If you just spent five minutes checking you'd see that it's even listed on IMDB. Plese don't support this man's work.
share[deleted]
What do you think "consensual oral sex" means? If Salva is saying it's consensual, he's saying that the boy he molested was capable of making an informed decision about the sex rather than that he manipulated the 12-yr-old kid into doing it using his age and position as director. That's denial. It's mitigating his guilt. Do the crime if you must but own it.
Plus, we don't need another pervert in Hollywood - it gets enough of a bad rap as it it. Just say no to this guy's work.
[deleted]
I'm inclined to agree with LostTime79. Throughout history, many artists have led less than exemplary personal lives, but we still can appreciate their art for what it has to say to us. Salva's personal life does not, however, make his films more interesting to me.
shareLess than exemplary? Guy screws up a kid for life and people choose to elevate him from scumbag child molester to "less than exemplary" or "he made a mistake". Pretty big f'n mistake, buddy. Second chances are often a good thing- yeah everyone makes mistakes, but this? Come on! Sick - is sick - is sick.
I cannot see supporting someone who would molest a child, then rationalize it by saying it was consentual(which is not possible), in any way. Is 2 hours worth of entertainment really worth it?
You would know that this is not "just" entertainment.
I worked at one time as a drug and alcohol abuse counselor. The best counselors we had were rehabilitated drug addicts. They knew the games, the problems, and issues, and how to cut through the BS and get to the real stuff. That may be the case here. Perhaps this man has a deeper understanding of the profound content of this film BECAUSE he's been a "sinner."
But what does his past have to do with you? This story is very powerful and is far more than "just entertainment." If you're looking for answers, might you not owe it to yourself to seek them out? Unless, like the protagonist, you think you already have them all. As far as you know, this film may be a form of penance for this man. Given the story, that would make more sense than not.
But I also want to add that I taught 12-year olds for many years and some of them are mature enough to give consent. It can't be legal, nor should it be, because most aren't. So your moral outrage may but also may not be appropriate. But to deprive yourself of a potentially empowering experience because of what someone else did or didn't do, seems foolhardy.
If this is still an issue for you but you want to see the film, go see it and pray for this man's redemption. Win-win.
Fair enough, but after seeing this and Powder I have to say he would help his cause if he would stop making movies with half naked young men.
shareChild Molesters Never Recover. It's not the same thing.
I'm a friend of Bill W.
While not condoning what Salva did, I seriously doubt oral sex ruined a 12-year old's life forever.
shareWhile not condoning what Salva did, I seriously doubt oral sex ruined a 12-year old's life forever
Children should NOT have sex, and yet they manage if they are persistent enough. But if they do, it should be with other children, people their own age, and never adults. Not ever adults.
shareHarvej, I don't think anyone here was saying that they should.
Stop the Canadian seal hunt
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/223733910?ltl=1175291892
Just to clarify- what defines "adult" in your book? Because there are prodigious 16-yr olds whose votes I'd value more than those of certain dip**** 20-yr olds. Yet the latter have a say in shaping democracy- which in turns shapes laws like 'age of consent'- and the former don't, because someone arbitrarily decided that 18 revolutions around the sun constitutes becoming "an adult," and that seems to do a gross injustice to a lot of mature people under 18, and gives far too much credit to a lot of literal ****in' retards over 18.
I'm an island- peopled by bards, scientists, judges, soldiers, artists, scholars & warrior-poets.
When powder came out the victim publicly boycotted it. I think that this in itself is an interesting aspect of the argument. Who knows what kind of mental things can grow from incidents that occur in childhood. In your own life, can you think of individual incidents when you were young that eventually created their own greater complexes or thought patterns etc. as you got older?
shareVictor Salva is a fine director. He has created some quality work and has an eye for filmmaking, regardless of what he did when he was 30.
Jeffrey Jones was caught with a house full of child pornography. Does this mean we should NEVER watch "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" again because it supports him? Charles S. Dutton was in prison for murder before he became an actor, but does that mean we should never watch another Charles S. Dutton film? Roman Polanski just won an Oscar, and he's on the lamb for fear of a sex act conviction.
Salva served time. Maybe it wasn't the appropriate amount of time, but he served it nevertheless. Evidently someone thought he had been rehabilitated enough to re-enter society. Let the man alone. He's done his time. He has not acted on his urges since his release, and I don't suspect he will. He has control over what he does. And making quality cinema is something he does well.
its called statutory rape, and give me a break, if it was your kid and he was your neighbour youd want him in prison, but hes hollywood, so like polanski just turn a blind eye and say its fine. theyre not gods, theyre people, and hes a child molester, so i agree, unless you think pedophilia is fine, (and if you do it should be someone you love next time) boycott his movies. i do polanskis, and i will his
sharei think statutory rape is fine, not big on paedophilia but each to their own. never done either of them, dont plan to, but if it happened to someone i love id say since when is screwing at 19 illegal?
shareWhile not condoning what Salva did, I seriously doubt oral sex ruined a 12-year old's life forever"
Such blessed ignorance. I'm not going to write out fifty pages going into the psychology of sex and it's affect on children when they feel manipulated, intimidated, or forced into it. Let's just say the likely complex he developed is no fun and probably put a strain on his sexual development and probably continues to affect his sex life today. I don't know if that falls under the category of having your life ruined but from people I know it's very stressful, upsetting and takes a long time to heal from.
[deleted]
What did you get taken advantage of at the age of 12 and perform oral sex on a molestor??? Thats freaking sick, and just as sick to say you doubt if it caused any harm. You sound like Lindsay Ashford!!!
The fact the molestation was taped I would imagine means the jerk had the boy finish the act so its all on film, that will haunt him forever in his life and I can't imagine the images he has that his mind can't stop. Lord only knows what else was done to the boy!!!
[deleted]
I'm actually starting to feel sorry for this man. Every movie he makes, the same threads show up on the message boards. If the Law says he payed his debt to society and is free to pursue his craft again, shouldn't he be judged on the work after so much time has passed?
"The superior man is modest in his speech, but exceeds in his actions." ~Confucius~
[deleted]
"I'm actually starting to feel sorry for this man. Every movie he makes, the same threads show up on the message boards. If the Law says he payed his debt to society and is free to pursue his craft again, shouldn't he be judged on the work after so much time has passed"
The fact is the law is usually an ass. I wouldnt trust them to act in anyone best interests other than thier own. The fact is, THIS MAN IS A CONVICTED CHILD MOLESTER and it seems as if all of his films have a penchant for young boys. He videotaped a little 12 year old boy giving him head for god sakes. He has done it once and I am sure there are other incidences that he has gotten away with.
THIS MAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN HUNG THE MINUTE HE WAS FOUND GUILTY.
His history makes it hard for me to enjoy his movies. I don't respect child molesters and feel gross when I'm being entertained by their movies.
You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need.
What does any of this have to do with the film? I pay attention to a person's work, not what they did or didn't do. That's up for a judge and jury to decide. It's not up to us as film viewers at all. Salva's personal troubles got enough coverage when "Powder" came out. If he breaks the law again, I assume he goes back to jail. But, that has nothing to do with this or any other film he's made at all. I feel for victims of child molestation, but we are not members of the jury. And, we did not hear the case. Who are we to give him or anyone else "The Scarlett Letter" treatment?
This is not a particularly good film though. It's unfortunate because the story itself was a good one. It is possible that Hollywood stuck its nose in the production as they did with tho other gymnastics film "Stick Up." But, for all intensive purposes, this was a definitive miss and that is what Silva should be criticized for in this forum.
A.F. "Tilly" Gokbudak
Yes, Yakirz, he could have ruined a 12 year old's life forever. My daughter was molested at age 12 and she is now a very bright, well educated adult and her experience has damaged her seuxality, no matter how she tries to over come it. I am glad I read these posts as I will not rent this movie--I'll just read the book.
While people can earn redemption, I am just non-forgiving of chiold molesters--sexual and otherwise.
This is where you're wrong. He did not screw up the kid for life, we did. Unless its forced and/or violent, a sexual act is not by itself damaging. It only becomes damaging when a society declares it so. Add to that the media manipulation and neverending repetition and the result is achieved, the boy finally feels screwed up for life, where he would have either forgotten the experience or cherished it otherwise.
Do you people have any knowledge of history at all? Have you any idea that the world even today has countless different societies where ethics differ so much that what is encouraged in one is punishable by death in another? We have this today, let alone throughout history.
"You were assimilated, resistance was futile!"
this comment does not deserve a meaningful and thought out response, so I shall just say you are a twat, and move on to other less annoying subjects.
share[deleted]
Oh who cares, it's not like the fact that a convicted child molester is free to make films, be famous and be free is any big deal. It's sick that someone can pull that crap and get away with it. AND DO NOT tell me was punished by some little fine and MAYBE some jail time, that is nothing compared to what he deserves. Wether or not that little boy wanted to means nothing, hewas willing to do it to him, what else mighthe do if free to get near kids again! This legal system is sick
shareHis personal life has nothing to do with my watching his films. If anything, it actually makes them more interesting.
Oh, come on! Watch Jeepers Creepers 2 in light of his past and say it doesn't change your experience of the film - now knowing what he did.
—Ray
_____
Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=12320866
i watched jeepers creepers 2 and it didnt change my experience of the film.
unlike some im not a self righeous ass who bases my opinion of someones work on their personal life.
kinda like i consider clinton to be one of the best presidents you idiots have had in years, but yanks cant see past what he does behind closed doors. its pathetic. get over it.
Watch it again and try to ignore the fact he molested a 12-year-old boy while watching it. How do you not read it back in to the work, it's so barely subtext it might as well be text.
And I have nothing against Clinton's personal affairs, his sex life has nothing to do with his job. Gingrich moved to have him impeached while he was cheating on his wife at the same time - the hypocrite.
We're talking about a man as the monster-by-proxy in his movie, c'mon.
_____
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=12320866
oh wait, jeepers creepers 2, never seen it, wasnt a big fan of the first one.
i was referring to the first.
scrap what i said im in no position to comment on that movie.
>> Do the crime if you must but own it.
What kind of idiot retarded moronic statement is that.
Doing a crime affects other people, after you have done
it, owning might be the right thing to do for the
perpetrator, but who cares, and it bears no relation
on the crime and criminal for anyone else. Your
statement really irritates me ... you seem to view
a crime like a purchase. Your attitude is a sick one.
Regardless of whether this man is a complete and utter scumbag pervert in his private life,
i appreciate this film in what it represents.
my main focus is not that it is this man's work,
but that message which it brings.
the film has something to say,
i suggest you listen to that and focus on that.
this film is good,
so appreciate it,
instead of focusing on the horrendous actions of its creator.
"So many wish to be intelligent, yet just as many lack the means."
You know what, I do agree and feel the same about Guillermo Del Toro despite how good of an artist he is.
It's like if I've met him in person, I wouldn't let him in my house so why would I let his work in. But I don't claim to be self-righteous as I have watched Pan's Labrynth although it wasn't in my house.
no I believe that everyone who works with him should suffer because of being in a film directed by a child molester. He knew what he was doing. Saying you don't care kinda sounds like "well he molested a bunch of children, but hell I will still see his movies so he gets his money...."
Guys a scum bag and nothing he does should be supported. But then again tommy lee is still pretty famous even though he was convicted for being the living *beep* of of pamela anderson multiple times. So there are still people out there with sketchy morals when it comes to rationalizing seeing a movie where a convicted child molester and not minding that it benefits them.
The guy should have his hands and dick cut off. Take both his weapons away.
Right, because the way to prove a crime is wrong, is to commit an even bigger one. I suppose you favor the death penalty as well...
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You sir are a douche bag.
sharei've heard a movie critic criticized this film of having too many scenes with half naked men...Salva molested a teenage boy some ten years ago on a set of one of his early films....and while it might just be his directorial decision to have so many shirtless men in his movie (it's about gymnasts afterall) or maybe, it was a ploy for ticket sell (hey, sex sells.)
in any case, i'm not seeing the movie because, well, the review i've read talked about how the movie is such a cliche of a uplifting touching movie. just not in the mood for that. not even a free ticket they're giving out (this film has been out since LAST SUMMER, every single movie theatre around colleges and universities has shown this film already, i'm surprise it's being advertise again.)
for those boycotting Salva's films because he's a child molester....isn't hollywood all about second chances? they gave an OSCAR to a child molesting director a few years ago didn't they? the guy directed Chinatown (one of my all time favorite), Rosemary's Baby, oh, and his oscar winning The Pianist won the award the year when everyone gave a political speech, remember? so if we can forgive the legendary and child molesting Roman Polanski (who by the way, is still afraid to set his foot inside US soil because of prosecution), maybe, just maybe, we can forgive Salva too (at least this guy went to jail for what he's done, hey, he didn't flee...)
Roman Polanski is not a child molestor, he is a statutory rapist. The difference being that he had sex with a post-pubescent (girl) who was under 18, not a pre-pubescent (boy).
shareif you will study the disease that is pedophilia you will find that there is no cure. it is one of the few like it. a pedophile is a pedophile for life. he chooses whether or not to act on his desires, that is his chance for redemption. and blaming his parents? polanski should be in prison, i agree, who cares about his movies, i dont. there is a place where you draw the line. do we just let the famous do whatever they want because we admire them? shall we give our children for the cause of celebrity and our adoration of it? i wont. im sorry that so many people seem vapid enough to not care
share"polanski should be in prison, i agree"
that wasnt the point that was made. and no, he shouldnt be in prison.
"who cares about his movies, i dont"
thanks for that, spokesperson for humanity.
"do we just let the famous do whatever they want because we admire them? shall we give our children for the cause of celebrity and our adoration of it? i wont. im sorry that so many people seem vapid enough to not care"
he went to jail. i dont constitute that as letting him do whatever he wants.
you dam right I am for the death penalty for sex offenders, be it rapists or child molesters. Why the hell should be pay to keep these people alive and in jail when there is no chance they will rehabilitate, or do you like paying money to give them a nice jail cell.
5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, it still doesn't beat the fact that he was convicted. As for someone saying lets point blame at the parents, you sir should have your balls ripped off for very obvious reasons.
[deleted]
See my previous post
shareCheck your facts. It's much cheaper to maintain someone in prison for life than it is to execute them. If that's even your concern. My guess is that it's more one of vengeance.
Nice "Christian" attitude you've got going on there!
You are not a very progressive person it would seem. By killing someone you make yourself at least as bad as them, this isn't my opinion it is fact, if you disagree with it you are simply wrong. Yes I am for paying money for punishing and rehabilitating convicted criminals, criminals are still people, and despite what you probably think money is transitorily valuable, whereas people are intrinsically valuable no matter what they have done. Again I remind you this is not my opinion this is the way it is and you and the rest of the world HAVE to start thinking this way if we are ever going to progress as a species.
shareLet he without sin cast the first stone.
Sex offenders are often the victims of childhood abuse and tend to follow the cycle of abuse as an adult because they don't receive help with dealing with their own abuse. Many sex offenders do rehabilitate and live lives that are constantly haunted by their past crimes. Murderers do their time and get out of jail without the same strict guidelines that sex offenders must follow. There are no online lists showing where murderers live and work and there certainly aren't self-appointed vigilantes making their lives hell for something they did in the past. Is sexual abuse that more horrid a crime than murder?
Why must sex offenders continue to pay for their crimes long after they finish their court appointed punishment? Should they continue to pay simply because their victim must live with the taint of sexual abuse for the rest of their lives? Ok, well what if their abuser had gone a step further and killed them? Would that sex offender/murderer now enjoy the same treatment as a murderer just because his/her victim is no longer tortured by their experience? Maybe you'd argue that it's the family's suffering that should dictate the punishment - what about the fact that most childhood sexual abuse is perpetrated by someone close to the family? Doesn't that double the family's suffering?
If someone committed a crime in the past and had already been punished for it, there's no reason to hold that against them after they've completed their penance. However, as a thinking individual, I would trust people would think twice about allowing someone with a history of such a crime to walk unsupervised amongst their children. Yes, I blame the parents who allowed their children to go unsupervised with Michael Jackson. While many rehabilitate while in prison, certainly not all of them do. Just as I wouldn't trust someone convicted of larceny to take charge of my money, I also wouldn't trust a convicted sex offender (or even someone accused and acquitted of such a crime) with a child.
As for boycotting his movie, if his movie features men sexually abusing small boys in a positive light, I'll join you on the pickett line. Until then, a movie is a movie regardless of who stars in/directs/produces/caters/etc it.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
"you dam right I am for the death penalty for sex offenders, be it rapists or child molesters. Why the hell should be pay to keep these people alive and in jail when there is no chance they will rehabilitate, or do you like paying money to give them a nice jail cell."
personally id rather they got rid of the law completely. thats the only way everyone will be happy. it means i get to kill people like you because youre stupid, and people like you get to kill child molesters. its win win.
"As for someone saying lets point blame at the parents, you sir should have your balls ripped off for very obvious reasons."
i dont think ull have time for that, either rip their balls off or kill the child molester, i wont wait around while you get all your affairs in order, i have things to do.
---------------------------------------------------
"you dam right I am for the death penalty for sex offenders, be it rapists or child molesters. Why the hell should be pay to keep these people alive and in jail when there is no chance they will rehabilitate, or do you like paying money to give them a nice jail cell."
personally id rather they got rid of the law completely. thats the only way everyone will be happy. it means i get to kill people like you because youre stupid, and people like you get to kill child molesters. its win win.
"As for someone saying lets point blame at the parents, you sir should have your balls ripped off for very obvious reasons."
i dont think ull have time for that, either rip their balls off or kill the child molester, i wont wait around while you get all your affairs in order, i have things to do.
-------------------------------------------------
/agree
females are the first to defend child molesters and will put you on their bad list if you say anything. besides this movie sucks anyway....Peaceful warrior? what is that..... that's like saying the fat skinny lady,,, or the headless lookout...
share[deleted]
or organised chaos...
im not seeing a problem with it...if you have an issue with the term, then perhaps you should just stop using the english language, cos youll find things like this everywhere.
clearly you havent seen the movie because you dont even understand the title. so saying the movie sucks when you havent read it really doesnt mean anything to anyone. besides, did the director even write the story? oh thats right, its a novel adaptation. so basically you suggesting it sucks because of the director only makes you a bigger ass than you think he is.
Maybe he learned his lesson. People like you keep rubbing his noses in the sh!t, let it go.
-------
Pimp gets own3d! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Rr30tpPM4w
[deleted]
Funny, people say a pedophilic can´t help it, he´s a sick man. He was born feeling attracted to children. Ok. That's true.
I was born feeling attracted to women. I can´t help it. Does it mean I can´t stop my self from raping one? Think about it.
(Maybe I ignore what´s really behind this pathology, and I´m making ignorant and superficial statements. If so, please reply and shed light on this)
That's a specious argument. I'm not defending child molesting, but it is legally impossible for a child to consent to sex, thus the analogy doesn't work.
The thing is, many child molestors convince themselves (or actually believe) that the children are consenting, and that the law is unjust.
it is only legal for a child to consent to sex with someone of their own age range, which he certainly wasnt, i believe its 3 years difference in age thats allowed, and you know what? pedophiles always say 'he/she wanted it', they always say there was consent
shareSo much self righteousness, all in one thread. It's sort of like witnessing a train wreck. It is terrible to see, but for some reason you keep looking.
The grin, what's the grin?
Not the grin, you idiot. The Grim
I don't see any self-righteousness, only people who refuse to watch a product made by a child molester. That is certainly their choice, just as it was Salva's choice to have oral sex with a 12-year-old.
If you're implying that people should be more forgiving and understanding about molestation, then I would seriously question your ethical standards. Perhaps consider how you'd feel if someone you loved was raped or molested. Then maybe you can picture your own "trainwreck" as you so eloquently put it.
You call this one and it's all over, baby!
I don't see any self-righteousness, only people who refuse to watch a product made by a child molester
If you're implying that people should be more forgiving and understanding about molestation, then I would seriously question your ethical standards. Perhaps consider how you'd feel if someone you loved was raped or molested. Then maybe you can picture your own "trainwreck" as you so eloquently put it
[deleted]
(s)he wasn't juding people seeing it, she just asked people to not go.
Even if the movie was great but the guy gave the vibe he didn't care, i think his cut woudl go into underage prostitutes or soemthing
[deleted]
See my previous post
shareAs of the last statistic I heard, two out of every three women will be sexually assaulted in some format during their lives whether it's as small as sexual harrassment (a pinch on the butt by a coworker to a boss demanding sex for a promotion) or as huge as molestation/rape.
With that being said, I can say I personally understand that "trainwreck" from myself to my sisters to my friends and relatives. Part of recovering from such abuse is learning to forgive your abuser and move on with your life. Abuse does not equal death. Ethics has nothing to do with survival.
Yes, it's your choice to not watch a film directed by a convicted sex offender. However, it's not your right to judge my choice on whether or not I choose to ignore who directed it and just watch a movie for its entertainment value. His past crime has nothing to do with the movie and has no bearing on whether or not I will enjoy it. Just because Mel Gibson is a racist bigot doesn't mean I can't enjoy Braveheart or The Patriot. Frankly, I don't care what they do in their personal lives and I think this country (as well as others) could benefit from ignoring the personal lives of their celebrities a bit more often.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
it is our right to judge your choice if you make the mistake of announcing it to the world. the idiot went on about how hes not going to watch it because of this, how is it surprising hes being shot down for it? if youre going to make the statement, be prepared for people to disagree with you or dont make it in the first place. its not like this is in response to what someone else said, he started the thread on it.
"Just because Mel Gibson is a racist bigot doesn't mean I can't enjoy Braveheart or The Patriot. Frankly, I don't care what they do in their personal lives and I think this country (as well as others) could benefit from ignoring the personal lives of their celebrities a bit more often."
completely agree.
I had to scroll back because I didn't remember what my original comment or even what this topic was about since my part in it goes back to April. My statement pertains to people judging someone else's personal decision that has nothing to do with them. I agree that the original commentator set themselves up for criticism when they made a blanket statement about everyone who would watch this movie.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
What about forgivness, redemption, etc...? Most of tthe "preachers" have a scary dark side. Is that your case?
shareWoody Allen
share[deleted]
This is really old news. The bottom line is if you want to watch a film with lots of cute young boys (clothed and unclothed) doing lots of vaguely homoerotic romping around, you will go to see his films. Frankly, it's the only reason I watch any of them. They don't have any significance otherwise, and he's hardly a director who's films I would go to see regardless. Unlike Polanski or Allen. They make interesting (sometimes great) films. What they do in their private life means nothing when it comes to whether or not I will watch a film by them. And if you knew what some actor or designer or writer or photographer or composer might have gotten away with in their private lives, would it make any difference whether or not you saw one of their films? Because if you did, you would probably never go to see another film in your entire life. I mean it's Hollyweed! There is bound to be at least one person working on every film who has done something illegal. And DeSalva didn't even get away with it! Do you know how many people in Hollyweed have gotten away with doing something illegal?! The mind boggles!!!
shareI think it is relevant to point out that the victim of the crime later publicly boycotted the movie Powder, which suggests the possibility that he wasn't too happy [putting it mildly] about what happened when he was 12. I suppose it's up to grown-ups, supposedly people with maturity, to help younger people make the right decisions in life, and to not take advantage of their emotional immaturity. Although a 12-year-old may not feel shame about sex actions with a much older person at that age, this might change as they get older. I have actually had experience dealing with another person who had this kind of experience.
Also, let's generally stop being so forgiving and supportive of these people who callously destroy and/or traumatize others' lives.
Most people praise the ancient greek philosophers, saying that they were great and that their contributions to the world of knowledge were extroadinary... I'm not denying that their ideas were brilliant at the time, but what I'm trying to say is that there are a lot of people that feel that these guys lived the way life should be lived, leaving out the fact that at the time it was socially expected that adult males would perform sexual acts on young boys.
If the child was mine, I would be pissed and unforgiving. Salva may very well be a sleezebag, but on the other hand, there were a lot more people involved in the making of this film than just him. In fact, I believe this film is based on a book written by Dan Millman, and I'd still be willing to watch this film.
Would I watch one of Salva's private videos of him molesting young boys, no way!!!
[deleted]
Also, let's generally stop being so forgiving and supportive of these people who callously destroy and/or traumatize others' lives
[deleted]
Maybe, maybe not. Your money is still funding them.
From reading this thread I started thinking about Jerry Lee Lewis. People are still buying his music and he married his 13 year old cousin. How is that any different?
The grin, what's the grin?
Not the grin, you idiot. The Grim
[deleted]
well first, I never bought his album so you can use that example on someone else
Another thing, give me examples of people I have funded with my money that have had sex with minors. Cause you can throw what if's all day, so give us some names.
There is definitely a difference between knowingly supporting people whose morals differ from yours and unknowingly supporting them. Even most legal systems acknowledge a difference in willful and accidental crimes (see the difference between manslaughter and murder, willful vs. accidental neglect, etc.)
Not every issue is black-and-white. There are shades of gray. The bottom line, though, is that if a person wants to boycott a particular director, actor, movie studio, musician, or even a particular key grip, that is his/her prerogative.
That said, there's also a pretty big emphasis in Christian doctrine regarding forgiveness. It's very difficult--and the closer you are to the victim, the harder it is--but it's there. A fairly significant percentage of persons in the world purport to be Christian. I wonder if any of the people calling for this guy to "have his balls ripped off" or to boycott his films go to church on Sunday mornings.
Personally I'm very much not a Christian. From my perspective, a forgiving attitude towards criminal behavior isn't much of a deterrent.
To go back to things that we as individuals think are "ridiculous," I think it is ridiculous to say we shouldn't make conscientious choices with our purchases because of the fact that it is impossible to be aware of every unethical person who may benefit from our money. I understand that you [jungle Lisa] think that this is logical, but this is in fact what is referred to as specious reasoning.
However, I understand that this Salva bastard needs to make a living somehow, I just don't think that he deserves a position of power and respect in our society, I believe that he has forfeited this [ideally], and I think that informed people should accept the responsibility of attempting to make the punishment of his crime as harsh as possible. Granted this is simply an opinion I, and others, share. I think that we as a society are way way too light on punishing crime, possibly because of the costs of jailing criminals.
By the way, Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage scandal pretty much totally devastated his career. Whoever is still purchasing his recordings almost certainly represents a marginal amount of the fans that he would have had without this scandal.
Forgiveness does not necessarily mean that there are no consequences for your actions. A Christian would not necessarily advocate that a person be released back into society after showing himself to be a dangerous person. Removal from society for society's protection is not contrary to Christian principles.
Vengeance, however, is, and there were a lot of vengeful comments being thrown around.
I'd like to say at this point that I think that vengeance is a perfectly valid need and emotion. Personally, I do not understand the aversion people have to this concept. I think that vengeance is closely related to the feelings of most [although obviously not all] victims and relatives of victims, and as such is more relevant than the feelings we have as outside observers to crimes.
shareThe bottom line, though, is that if a person wants to boycott a particular director, actor, movie studio, musician, or even a particular key grip, that is his/her prerogative.
For the record, I don't believe that this is precisely the argument I, personally, am trying to make. None of my comments are intended to be insults, although anyone is free to infer from them what they like.
shareThat's just silly. My money goes to support a product I enjoyed. I'm funding that venture, not the molestation of children (or any other illegal operation). By making that statement, you're saying that you actually agree with all the people who are saying they're not going to see the movie because then it would be supporting a child molester. What about the other people who worked on the film; are they too unsupportable because they worked with this director? How far does it go? Do we not support them only on this film or are they forever tainted by it? Will you refuse to go see a major blockbuster simply because one of the supporting cast members from Peaceful Warrior had a hand in it? Do we boycott their fanclubs? How about the people who watched the film with said director? Are they also held as accomplices in a crime that happened long before the movie they bought tickets for was ever thought of?
The logic of your arguement is flawed and silly.
__________________________________
I ain't your friend, palooka.
The logic of my argument is further developed and explained a little later on in this thread. Please follow the postings to this point and make your comments there.
sharePersonally I'm very much not a Christian. From my perspective, a forgiving attitude towards criminal behavior isn't much of a deterrent.
To go back to things that we as individuals think are "ridiculous," I think it is ridiculous to say we shouldn't make conscientious choices with our purchases because of the fact that it is impossible to be aware of every unethical person who may benefit from our money. I understand that you [jungle Lisa] think that this is logical, but this is in fact what is referred to as specious reasoning.
However, I understand that this Salva bastard needs to make a living somehow, I just don't think that he deserves a position of power and respect in our society, I believe that he has forfeited this [ideally], and I think that informed people should accept the responsibility of attempting to make the punishment of his crime as harsh as possible. Granted this is simply an opinion I, and others, share. I think that we as a society are way way too light on punishing crime, possibly because of the costs of jailing criminals.
By the way, Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage scandal pretty much totally devastated his career. Whoever is still purchasing his recordings almost certainly represents a marginal amount of the fans that he would have had without this scandal.