Sigh.
There was no 20 year window of opportunity when "rest of the Europe" - or America for that matter - could have put a stop to rise of Hitler…
I'm not sure about what kind of personal motivations you might have in matters such as these, but I'd strongly advise against distorting reality to match your own incredulity. You don't want to muddle things but rather gain more clarity, am I right?
I'd be more than happy to shed more light concerning your preposterous claim but I wonder if you truly are willing to have this conversation... But do let me know in case you are.
***
Out of genuine curiosity, though, which part of this dauntingly complex argument you fail to grasp which simply insists that if no man would take up arms and refuse to go to war, then wars would cease to exist?
Because the logic itself is bulletproof.
The man was merely stating the obvious. This line of thinking can of course be labeled as naive. Particularly by men and women who generally seem to be of the opinion that man cannot change for better. I tend to disagree, though.
In another post you say: "In retrospect, yes, he was a spineless, insensitive, heartless, pseudo-intellectual, adulterous, manipulative, cowardice, pedophile."
Apart from the last label, above description should fit most people on the face of the Earth rather well. But I'm sure you're an exception, of course.
I'm willing to take out my own skeletons out of the closet and show my own shortcomings as a human being if you are willing to do the same. Otherwise this is just another pointless rehersal in abstract thinking.
Please enlighten me: what specifically you found to be pseudo-intellectual about what Roland said or who he was? It wasn't simply a case of his ideas not fitting in with yours then?
I'd be much obliged if you could give us all a couple of examples that'll display genuine intelligence as opposed to pseudo-intellectuality. Thanks already.
Oh, and as others have already pointed out, the girl in the movie was of legal age of consent. But I'm sure you can't be bothered with such trivialities either… Pedo's a pedo, right?
My personal take on guys like Roland is that such men will always take advantage of attractive and willing females, and that they generally care little if at all about what the legal age of consent might be.
I wouldn't automatically call such persons as pedophiles though. What matters is the context.
In this day and age we are only too eager to label anyone as a pedophile who has sex with person who isn't adult in the eyes of the law.
We don't have to accept that a college professor has sex with his pupils. We don't have to accept that he has sex with 17-year-olds, or 16-year-olds, or 15-year-olds, and so forth.
But it also doesn't mean that these things do not happen. Nor that when such things do happen that you would be unable to find parties that are more or less fine and dandy with what has happened. It's not unheard of that some teenagers openly boast that they've slept with their teacher - and that the story is true, too.
In such cases one could hardly argue that these "children" have been scarred for life. On the contrary, for some it will be a badge of honor to flaunt on anyone who will listen.
Roland certainly used his seniority, his position as a professor and even his boyish charm to let Rosa know that he won't mind if she won't mind, and right or wrong, this is exactly what happened.
I wonder if his tenure as a professor wasn't cut short when or if the incident went public.
If affirmative, then deservedly so.
But no, I wouldn't call Roland a pedophile. That's a term that has been inflated to such a degree as to be almost useless today. Pedophile is a person who has an abnormal sexual fascination towards little children. As soon as we start broadening the scope much further things get murky fast.
A guy banging a female who is physically an adult but in some eyes still considered as a child is just a douchebag. Always has been and always will be.
Roland was just one of those guys who don't really mind crossing certain lines when an opportuny presents itself.
Something rather similar happens when guys who have never had any kind of contact with the opposite sex finally get their driver's license - and daddy's wheels - and, voilà!, suddenly they transform themselves into all hours taxi cab full of underage girls…
What Roland and 18-year-old male virgins (who all pray that'll change soon enough) have in common, is that they bend the rules of proper conduct. They're queuing in the wrong line. No contest. You couldn't lose even if you tried.
In the eyes of the law, any sorry wanker with a car can start banging the brains out of girls that are 2-3 years their junior… when females their own age wouldn't give these guys even minute of their attention.
The logic goes that these guys are emotionally in the same developmental league. I can't help but think that this kind of a system had to be set up just to get all these sorry losers to get laid at least once in their life with a female who isn't a prostitute… at least not in the traditional meaning of the word.
To cap: a 17-year-old female is anything but a child. Emotionally a 17-year-old could be as mature as any 20 something guy or gal (which ain't saying much I must admit), but I'm sure there are 16 or 17-year-old guys and gals who really are closer to 13-year-olds…
And yes, you get a pretty good idea of a person's emotional stage of development simply by having an honest 5 minute conversation with them.
Rosa was portrayed by a 18-year-old actress whose both parent are film directors - divorced of course - so one can fairly safely assume that she got a so-called free upbringing. I quote: "New Zealand is where the really arty, whimsical side of the family resided." Naturally she dropped out of high school to pursue acting… As any responsible parent would advise their offspring to do.
Believe me when I say that this young lady playing Rosa was anything but your typical insecure 17-year-old. In her own words she has spent "half of her life in planes" (where ever her mother's work happened to take her).
The fact that she's already visited more places and cultures and done more things than most of her peers will ever get to do unavoidably shows both in the movie and in real life, too. Compared to her peers this actress has matured faster and consequently is more self-confident - at least externally - in most if not all respects.
There are now studies that argue that children who feel emotionally neglected by their parents (probably because they are) hit puberty faster than those who report no such emotional neglect. It's been speculated that the body has no choice but to speed up the process because the child no longer can depend on her parents to take care of her. The faster she can take care of herself, the better off she will be - or so the logic seems to suggest.
In the film it is quite clear that Rosa did exactly what she wanted to do - apart from getting pregnant, maybe. Be that as it may, she is clearly not freaked out by the fact that she's going to be a mom herself soon.
If anything she might have gotten knocked up deliberately just to spite her own mother - and to "prove" that she can do a better job of being a responsible mother, and to show that unlike her she can also "keep his man around".
She might have hoped that she wouldn't have become pregnant (at least quite so soon) - hard to tell because of her religious stance - but she was obviously ready to take that risk anyways.
Ultimately she made her own choices without anyone having to force her into doing something she didn't want to do.
The trouble with movies such as these is that they end the story just when there would be an actually worthwhile story to tell.
A story that would truly shed some light on how unusual relationships such as the one depicted here would - or could - turn out be.
I'm just not convinced that the general movie going audiences are willing to see such a story unfold.
If they'd live happily ever after, they'd still insist that Roland's a pedo-monster and should be stoned to death.
And if the couple would split up - which as we remember was Roland's preferred mode of dealing with probably every issue that he found unbearable - folks would insist that this is the only way things are ever going to turn out (and PS. Would someone kill that pedo before he gets another chance to ruin another innocent child's life).
My two cents.
reply
share