Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 

Author Topic: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist  (Read 5706 times)

Funt Solo

  • Member
  • Bionic Fingers
  • *****
  • Posts: 9134
  • Research Monkey
    • View Profile
Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
« Reply #60 on: 12 November, 2021, 06:50:16 PM »
I always say that these abuser often come as the nicest guys.

But not to the victims of their domestic abuse or sexual assault, which is rather the point.

This reminds me of the case of the rapist in the US who the Judge defended on the basis that he was a really good swimmer. The rapist's father said that his rapist son shouldn't have his career ruined over "a few minutes". Of rape.

Do we really want a legal system where "nice guys" are allowed to commit crime?
++ map ++ thrills ++ coma ++

Mister Pops

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3300
  • You're Goddamn right!
    • View Profile
Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
« Reply #61 on: 12 November, 2021, 07:47:28 PM »
I read somewhere that many habitual abusers and predators spend more time grooming character witnesses than they do grooming their victims. I can't remember where I read that, but I think about it every time someone tries to defend these arseholes.
You may quote me on that.

milstar

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
    • View Profile
Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
« Reply #62 on: 12 November, 2021, 08:38:09 PM »
I always say that these abuser often come as the nicest guys.

But not to the victims of their domestic abuse or sexual assault, which is rather the point.

This reminds me of the case of the rapist in the US who the Judge defended on the basis that he was a really good swimmer. The rapist's father said that his rapist son shouldn't have his career ruined over "a few minutes". Of rape.

Do we really want a legal system where "nice guys" are allowed to commit crime?

Actually, I thought on the victims too (ofcourse given that abuse don't have to be always about sexuality) that is before the abuse itself. Nice guy who walk you back home, then - zap! A wolf in sheep's skin.
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.

Rara Avis

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 507
    • View Profile
Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
« Reply #63 on: 13 November, 2021, 02:01:53 PM »
I always say that these abuser often come as the nicest guys.

But not to the victims of their domestic abuse or sexual assault, which is rather the point.

This reminds me of the case of the rapist in the US who the Judge defended on the basis that he was a really good swimmer. The rapist's father said that his rapist son shouldn't have his career ruined over "a few minutes". Of rape.

Do we really want a legal system where "nice guys" are allowed to commit crime?

Brock Turner, raped a girl who was passed out, in an alleyway, I  believe his father referred to it as "a few minutes of fun" ...

And yes women are most likely to be raped in their own homes by someone they know.

The Legendary Shark

  • Member
  • CALL-ME-KENNETH!
  • *****
  • Posts: 10535
  • Tip: Sharks only attack you if you're wet.
    • View Profile
Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
« Reply #64 on: 13 November, 2021, 02:47:03 PM »

Do we really want a legal system where "nice guys" are allowed to commit crime?


[sarcasm]Why not? We already have one where rich and powerful ones are.[/sarcasm]

~~~^~~~~~~~


Dive a little deeper - all is not as it seems. "Cyber pandemic" on the way. Devices to be "quarantined" (disconnected).

Tjm86

  • Member
  • Battle Hardened War Robot
  • ****
  • Posts: 3393
    • View Profile
Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
« Reply #65 on: 13 November, 2021, 03:47:40 PM »
The rapist's father said that his rapist son shouldn't have his career ruined over "a few minutes". Of rape.

... but it's fine for the victim to have their lives ruined by those few minutes ... potential PTSD, anxiety attacks, depression, alcohol or drug dependency at the extreme .... for the lucky ones just mild depression, the odd flashback and intimacy issues.

Then of course there's the old 'sl*t shaming' of victims.  They were 'begging for it', they had a history of sexual behaviour / numerous partners, they were dressed provocatively ...

Small wonder that the number of sexual assaults that are reported are pitifully low.  If the actual assault wasn't bad enough then the legal system piles on the injury.  Innocent until proven guilty is fair enough but that needs to extend to the victim too.  That's without mentioning the old right of the accused to psychologically assault the victim on the witness stand by cross-examining them.

I would accept the idea that the career of perpetrators should be given a second chance provided they accepted punishment, showed contrition and tried to make amends.

milstar

  • Member
  • Prog Stacking Droid
  • ***
  • Posts: 674
    • View Profile
Re: A Moral Dilemma - separating the art from the artist
« Reply #66 on: 14 November, 2021, 01:36:35 PM »
... but it's fine for the victim to have their lives ruined by those few minutes ... potential PTSD, anxiety attacks, depression, alcohol or drug dependency at the extreme .... for the lucky ones just mild depression, the odd flashback and intimacy issues.

Then of course there's the old 'sl*t shaming' of victims.  They were 'begging for it', they had a history of sexual behaviour / numerous partners, they were dressed provocatively ...

Small wonder that the number of sexual assaults that are reported are pitifully low.  If the actual assault wasn't bad enough then the legal system piles on the injury.  Innocent until proven guilty is fair enough but that needs to extend to the victim too.  That's without mentioning the old right of the accused to psychologically assault the victim on the witness stand by cross-examining them.

I would accept the idea that the career of perpetrators should be given a second chance provided they accepted punishment, showed contrition and tried to make amends.

I am not too keen on giving second chances when it comes to major infractions. You murder someone, you rape someone, and somehow you think people will forgive you. Maybe for some, but not for me. In this case, perhaps not all of the three actors are really guilty. Because I truly believe that no one, literally no one has the (exclusive) right to be a victim and/or oppressor. But what if they are? Or at least one of them. Having read about Armie Hammer, I felt sickened; then again, he just may be another weirdo. Either way, it's up to a court to decide. Given all options are lawfully exploited, for the defendant and accuser.
In this topic, it's sometimes difficult to judge the quality of art if you know that the artist has been a true tosser. I don't know... Lewis Carroll and pedophilia? Then again, I do not have the evidence he committed something truly unspeakable. I somewhat remember a piece of a dialogue from The Thomas Crown Affair, coming from the FBI detective, who was trying to arrest Pierce Brosnan's character.  Fed up with the case, proclaiming he doesn't care and lets Pierce's love partner off - "I caught last week a wife abuser" (or was it kids beater?, "so I don't care for a few pieces of paint that matter to those rich people".
When Frank Miller is denied entrance to some comic con because of some of his anti-islam remarks in the past, I don't care. He even apologizes for it and I trust that he grew out of it and it was just a statement said in the most unfortunate moment in US history.
Reyt, you lot. Shut up, belt up, 'n if ye can't see t' bloody exit, ye must be bloody blind.