Jeffrey Epstein and Friends

18910111214»

Comments

  • josevolutionjosevolution Posts: 23,407
    It’s just disgusting I hope justice gets served! 
    jesus greets me looks just like me ....
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,647
    not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids. 
    Regardless of the appropriate terminology, the bottom line for me is that he and his cohorts like to control and fuck young girls. 
  • OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MNPosts: 2,570
    not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids. 
    That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms.  At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up.  And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
    1995 Milwaukee
    1998 Alpine, Alpine
    2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston
    2004 Boston, Boston
    2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)
    2011 Alpine, Alpine
    2013 Wrigley
    2014 St. Paul
    2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley
    2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 21,414
    hedonist said:
    not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids. 
    Regardless of the appropriate terminology, the bottom line for me is that he and his cohorts like to control and fuck young girls. 
    absolutely. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 21,414
    OnWis97 said:
    not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids. 
    That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms.  At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up.  And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
    i've always found these arbitrary age cutoffs a bit weird. i mean, obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. but it's just odd that one day the guy could go to prison for life, and literally the next day everything is normal. that's pretty fucked up. 

    i find it fucked up that any person would want to have relations with anyone that much younger than they are. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • hedonisthedonist standing on the edge of foreverPosts: 21,647
    OnWis97 said:
    not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids. 
    That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms.  At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up.  And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
    i've always found these arbitrary age cutoffs a bit weird. i mean, obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. but it's just odd that one day the guy could go to prison for life, and literally the next day everything is normal. that's pretty fucked up. 

    i find it fucked up that any person would want to have relations with anyone that much younger than they are. 
    Well, it happens with some adult couples. It’s the ones in their 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. who
    apply that same age difference with young ones. 
  • mickeyratmickeyrat Posts: 18,365
    edited August 1
    so these minors can consent to being taken out of the country and not be considered of age to consent to sex? I mean "private island" who has jurisdiction?

    I think in the US taking a minor out of state is kidnapping. Seems so from some of the stories I have read concerning sex trafficking. Cant see how this is different.
    Post edited by mickeyrat on
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon I'm from Winnipeg, you idiot! (Chris Jericho)Posts: 21,414
    hedonist said:
    OnWis97 said:
    not trying to be a dick, but this isn't pedophilia. it's hebephilia (ages 11-14) or ephebophilia (15-19). i know people just use "pedo" as the universal term, but just in case anyone wants to know the actual term for being attracted to pubescent kids. 
    That’s why I added statutory to my statement. I know creep dudes having sex wit 17 year olds are not pedophiles...though I didn’t know these terms.  At any rate hopping a plane to go have sex with anyone not old enough to consent is messed up.  And the nearly invariable tendency for large groups to to enable it is unreal.
    i've always found these arbitrary age cutoffs a bit weird. i mean, obviously you have to draw the line somewhere. but it's just odd that one day the guy could go to prison for life, and literally the next day everything is normal. that's pretty fucked up. 

    i find it fucked up that any person would want to have relations with anyone that much younger than they are. 
    Well, it happens with some adult couples. It’s the ones in their 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. who
    apply that same age difference with young ones. 
    yes, sorry, that's what i mean. I don't mean a 20 or 30 year age difference applied unilaterally. a 15-45 couple obviously isn't the same as a 45-75 couple. 
    1993 - Gimli, MB (Sun/Mudfest)
    2003 - Fargo, ND
    2005 - Winnipeg, MB
    2011 - Minneapolis, MN (EV)
    2011 - Winnipeg, MB
    2014 - St. Paul, MN
    2020 - Ottawa, ON
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 24,516
    Team Trump Treason wishing her well, again. Such compassion.

    https://apple.news/AXp8_pYhbR7ya0sQpOnnL6Q

    How’s your head feeling?
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 24,516
    Seems a little defensive here. Maybe how a guilty party might act?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/alan-dershowitz-claims-the-good-wife-defamed-him-the-implications-for-fiction-writers-are-very-real/2020/08/05/703e7106-d699-11ea-aff6-220dd3a14741_story.html?hpid=hp_sundayarts-right-4-0_arts-ent-magic2:homepage/story-ans

    Alan Dershowitz, who is a real lawyer, claims he has been defamed by Benjamin Dafoe, who is a fictional lawyer.

    Hang on, your honor. Things are about to get complicated.

    “The Good Fight,” which streams on CBS All Access, frequently revolves around ripped-from-the-headlines events. On May 28, the legal drama aired an episode called “The Gang Discovers Who Killed Jeffrey Epstein,” about the wealthy sex offender who died in prison last year. On the show,

    Benjamin Dafoe, Epstein’s (fictional) former attorney, says he formed a very bad opinion of Epstein after “he ditched me for Dershowitz.” Then he adds: “At least I didn’t get a massage, like that shyster.”

    In a letter sent to CBS and made public by Variety, Dershowitz’s lawyer claims that this episode is defamatory and constitutes “a direct attack on his professional reputation as an attorney and professor of law.” Dershowitz wants CBS to delete the offending dialogue and issue him a public apology.

    A real-life lawyer for CBS responded with all the pluck and wit you would expect from a character on “The Good Fight.” “Benjamin Dafoe is not a real lawyer,” wrote attorney Jonathan Anschell. “. . . In other words, as one might explain to a small child, the Series, its characters and the things they say are all make-believe. People don’t watch the Series for factual information about Professor Dershowitz or anyone else.”

    Dershowitz’s objection to “The Good Fight” may sound like a variant of the strange legal battle that Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) launched last year against a parodic cow on Twitter. But his complaint, if successful, could pose a challenge to the vibrancy of contemporary historical fiction and biographical fiction — indeed, to any creative work that includes interactions between fictional and real-life public figures.

    Just this summer, for instance, several prominent writers have published novels that borrow, embellish and manipulate the details of well-known people’s lives. Their stories freely mingle fiction and nonfiction, statements people have said and statements they have never said. There are no footnotes in these novels to distinguish truth from fantasy, research from invention. Those elements are as hard to pick out as the lentils that Cinderella’s stepmother tossed in the ashes. (Note: A lawyer for Cinderella’s stepmother categorically denies that accusation.)

    Last month, Christopher Buckley published a hilarious Washington satire called “Make Russia Great Again.” While some characters — like the hospitality expert who narrates the novel — are constructed from whole cloth, others are only thinly disguised, such as President Trump’s daughter “Ivunka” and her husband “Jored.” Almost everybody in these pages is accused of committing unethical and illegal acts. The outlandish plot revolves around a videotape of Trump “grabbing” 18 beauty pageant contestants.

    In a less riotous but equally inventive vein, Curtis Sittenfeld’s new novel, “Rodham,” presents itself as a memoir by Hillary Clinton. The novel’s early pages follow the generally known details of Hillary’s life. It’s often difficult to remember that you’re not actually reading the former first lady’s words. But soon, Hillary and her magnetic boyfriend, Bill Clinton, break up. The rest of the novel takes place in an alt-reality where the two never married. A crisis erupts when a fictional character accuses Hillary of sexual harassment. Whether this is defamatory depends on what your definition of is is.

    Later this month, Darin Strauss will publish a novel called “The Queen of Tuesday” about the TV star Lucille Ball. Much of the detail about Ball’s life and career is based on her biography, but the heart of the novel involves a fictional affair between Ball and Strauss’s grandfather. It’s too late for Ball to sue, of course, but does this illicit story line damage her legacy?

    Consider how many novels, plays, TV shows and movies would have to be canceled or dramatically clipped to protect famous people from being offended by such creative license. Fiction should be like Vegas: What happens there, stays there. Fictional characters can no more defame a real-life person than they can murder one.

    We like to imagine this is a modern issue, but our earliest stories arose millennia ago from a complex mingling of fact and fiction, tribal history and myth. Could Penelope’s suitors have sued Homer for Odysseus’s comments about them? Okay, that’s a ridiculous question, because surely Athena would have defended him, but stay with me here.

    The challenge of blending real and invented characters wasn’t so theoretical for William Shakespeare. Macbeth probably lacked standing to challenge him in court, but writing political history plays under the reign of a monarch was a dangerous endeavor for the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. When Shakespeare worked on a play called “Henry VIII,” he was treading very close to the sensitivities of tyrannical power.

    Consider how many novels, plays, TV shows and movies would have to be canceled or dramatically clipped to protect famous people from being offended by such creative license. Fiction should be like Vegas: What happens there, stays there. Fictional characters can no more defame a real-life person than they can murder one.

    We like to imagine this is a modern issue, but our earliest stories arose millennia ago from a complex mingling of fact and fiction, tribal history and myth. Could Penelope’s suitors have sued Homer for Odysseus’s comments about them? Okay, that’s a ridiculous question, because surely Athena would have defended him, but stay with me here.

    The challenge of blending real and invented characters wasn’t so theoretical for William Shakespeare. Macbeth probably lacked standing to challenge him in court, but writing political history plays under the reign of a monarch was a dangerous endeavor for the man from Stratford-upon-Avon. When Shakespeare worked on a play called “Henry VIII,” he was treading very close to the sensitivities of tyrannical power.

    Since that time, we’ve continued to relish the portrayal — laudatory and malicious — of famous people in works of art, and courts have extended special protection to such amalgamations. Just two years ago, an appellate court in California ruled against Olivia de Havilland when she sued FX Networks over the miniseries “Feud: Bette and Joan.” The legendary actress claimed that the TV show violated her privacy, misappropriated her identity and harmed her reputation. But the court shot down those complaints, writing that “viewers are generally familiar with dramatized, fact-based movies and miniseries in which scenes, conversations, and even characters are fictionalized and imagined.” The judges referred to an earlier decision from 2001, which concluded that “the right of publicity cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, be a right to control the celebrity’s image by censoring disagreeable portrayals.”

    Writers are fortunate to have that First Amendment protection, but we readers and viewers benefit most. In a good work of historical or biographical fiction, there’s a magical synthesis between fact and creativity. We’re drawn into an understanding that transcends the mere details of history and biography.

    This is, admittedly, a sophisticated game that authors are playing with us — and the law. In a brief Author’s Note, Buckley states, “Any person finding any resemblance between themselves and persons depicted herein should probably be ashamed.” Sittenfeld takes a more serious approach. She begins her new novel by claiming: “While some characters have real-life counterparts, their characterizations and the incidents in which they are depicted are products of the author’s imagination and are used fictitiously. ‘Rodham’ should be read as a work of fiction, not biography or history.”

    But that’s not entirely true, and if it were, the novel wouldn’t be generating nearly so much attention. Yes, Sittenfeld’s characters and incidents have been creatively manipulated by the author, but part of their fascinating appeal remains their uncanny resemblance to actual people and events. That, it seems to me, is the ambiguous realm we must continue to appreciate — and legally defend. We come to understand something essential about our history, and about the figures who exercise such outsized influence over it, when we engage with stories that force us to imagine them in invented contexts.

    When I asked Dershowitz if his complaint could possibly imperil contemporary historical fiction, he noted that his objection is focused on just one issue. “I am challenging the concept that a writer cannot, as a matter of law, defame a living person by putting malicious lies in the mouths of fictional characters,” he wrote via email. “I have no legal objection to the genre of using real names in fictional accounts — though I personally disapprove of it in the name of honesty. Nor do I have a problem with fictional characters being critical of real people, as long as the criticism is not maliciously defamatory.”

    I’m not a lawyer — not even a fictional one — but I worry that such a legal limit would constrain artists either by suing them into silence or forcing them to censor their own imaginations to avoid the possibility of being dragged into court. Judges have justly concluded that readers and viewers are smart enough to demarcate fact and fiction, but more than that, we deserve the valuable alloy made from those two metals.

    Dershowitz’s position could possibly jeopardize such creativity — and generate a host of lawsuits. By way of example, he wrote: “If Walt Disney had Donald Duck falsely accuse a living person of being a murderer or bank robber, that person should be able to sue Disney or the writer. It’s worse when the writer puts defamatory accusations in the mouth of a realistic lawyer character.”

    With all respect, counselor, I’m with Donald Duck here. “Aw, phooey!


    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
Sign In or Register to comment.