IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dylan farrow , mia farrow , sexual misconduct charges , woody allen

Reply
Old 2nd February 2014, 09:18 PM   #121
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,744
Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
That's a bit shameful that this is exactly the line of reasoning for a lot of people. Believing some celeb they like could do no harm.
I'm seeing the exact opposite in the comments sections of news articles. The vast majority of written opinion has come out against Allen because he's from "Hollyweird" (which is crazy since he loves New York and despises Los Angeles) and because he's a "liberal Jew." Moreover, he's "obviously" a "creepy" little kid-toucher since he married his "step-daughter."
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2014, 09:18 PM   #122
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,241
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Also, the nanny says the video took 2-3 days to shoot. That's a lot of harping on a child. In that time you can pretty much get them to say anything you want.
Do you have any information on exactly how long the video was? If we're talking hours and hours of video, yeah I see your point. If we're talking about say a seven minute video, this is gratuitous well-poisoning.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2014, 09:19 PM   #123
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
How dare you allow skepticism to stand in the way of a good witch hunt?
An article from a friend/fanboy of the accused. Skepticism. Yeah.

Not saying he is wrong, but it is so easy to cherry pick and remove context that it is on the same level as the daughter's letter, except he isn't claiming personal experience.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2014, 11:20 PM   #124
Damien Evans
Up The Irons
Tagger
 
Damien Evans's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 34,458
Originally Posted by Kahalachan View Post
So let me get this straight. A guy marries his ex-lover's adopted daughter. Nothing seems off about this?

You're just pointing that he's committed to her. The claim isn't that he's cheated on her. The claim is that he's been sexual with someone significantly younger and close enough to be considered family.

OMG that's happened before
The claim is wrong.
__________________
i loves the little birdies they goes tweet tweet tweet hee hee i loves them they sings to each other tweet twet tweet hee hee i loves them they is so cute i love yje little birdies little birdies in the room when birfies sings ther is no gloom i lobes the little birdies they goess tweet tweet tweet hee hee hee i loves them they sings me to sleep sing me to slrrp now little birdies - The wisdom of Shemp.
Damien Evans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2014, 11:30 PM   #125
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,710
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
No, I wasn't assuming they were framed, merely a stack of Polaroids. It seems highly unlikely Allen would leave such simply laying on a mantelpiece. Nude pictures in a desk or nightstand drawer, okay. Tossed carelessly on a mantel, no.
Are you saying these pictures were not there? It seems Woody Allen himself does not dispute their existence.

Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
That really seems likely to you? A man is having a secret affair with his girlfriend's adopted daughter...so he take pornographics pictures of her, and then puts them on his mantel for not only Mia but EVERY visitor to his apartment to see?

How many of you would take pornographic pictures-presumably not artistic nudes, but pornographic-pictures of your much younger love interest, who is also the daughter of your other love interest, and put them for all and sundry to view?

Nu-uh. Not buying it.
They weren't on display!
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2014, 11:32 PM   #126
angrysoba
Philosophile
 
angrysoba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Osaka, Japan
Posts: 31,710
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Tendencies to date adult women? That monster!!!!!



So he should be in prison for dating an adult woman who he was not related to? That pretty much describes every girlfriend I've ever had.

THC
"Pretty much"?
__________________
"The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before."

"Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)
angrysoba is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd February 2014, 11:48 PM   #127
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,773
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
Do you have any information on exactly how long the video was? If we're talking hours and hours of video, yeah I see your point. If we're talking about say a seven minute video, this is gratuitous well-poisoning.
The issue isn't how long the video is, the issue is how long Farrow spent eliciting the responses. A period of 2-3 days is a long time.

There is a reason people who interview children are highly trained in what they do and why a parent is probably the worst person to interview a child about such allegations.

Quote:
Maggie Bruck in her article published by the American Psychological Association wrote that children incorporate aspects of the interviewer's questions into their answers in an attempt to tell the interviewer what the child believes is being sought. Studies also show that when adults ask children questions that do not make sense (such as "is milk bigger than water?" or "is red heavier than yellow?"), most children will offer an answer, believing that there is an answer to be given, rather than understand the absurdity of the question. Furthermore, repeated questioning of children causes them to change their answers. This is because the children perceive the repeated questioning as a sign that they did not give the "correct" answer previously. Children are also especially susceptible to leading and suggestive questions.
Quote:
Interviewer bias also plays a role in shaping child testimony. When an interviewer has a preconceived notion as to the truth of the matter being investigated, the questioning is conducted in a manner to extract statements that support these beliefs. As a result, evidence that could disprove the belief is never sought by the interviewer. Additionally, positive reinforcement by the interviewer can taint child testimony. Often such reinforcement is given to encourage a spirit of cooperation by the child, but the impartial tone can quickly disappear as the interviewer nods, smiles, or offers verbal encouragement to "helpful" statements. Some studies show that when interviewers make reassuring statements to child witnesses, the children are more likely to fabricate stories of past events that never occurred.
Just from the testimony surrounding the video tape, and how it was made, given by Farrow and the nanny , it is easy to see where several of these issues could happen. The professionals at the time agreed and stated the evidence pointed to coaching on the part of Farrow because of sharp inconsistencies in the child's accounts over time and to a climate of dislike for Allen that permeated the household in the 8 months since his and Soon-Yi's relationship came to light.
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 12:02 AM   #128
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,257
WHat I can't stand are those...and they are all over the internet who say that even if Allen is guilty,he should be given a pass because he is such a great filmmaker.
Sorry, but I totally reject this whole "Talented artist deserve to be exempt from the rules for the rest of uf" mentality.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 01:05 AM   #129
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,773
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
No he didn't:



Two different courts, two different matters.
Actually, I was correct. The prosecutor sent the statements to both judges which tainted their decisions.

Quote:
Maco also directed his secretary to fax copies of his statement to two judges in New York. The judges were ruling on Allen's visitation rights with Dylan, and on a motion filed by Farrow to annul Allen's adoption of Dylan and one of her other children.
http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.c...ody-allen.html
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 02:13 AM   #130
Cool Hand Luke
Muse
 
Cool Hand Luke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 505
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
WHat I can't stand are those...and they are all over the internet who say that even if Allen is guilty,he should be given a pass because he is such a great filmmaker.
Sorry, but I totally reject this whole "Talented artist deserve to be exempt from the rules for the rest of uf" mentality.
.
I absolutely agree. Talent is not a license for sin. If Allen did this then he needs to be exposed and brought to justice. No question in my mind about that at all.

At the same time I think there's a case to be made for separating the art and the artist. I view art as independent of its creator. I accept it for its own sake without regard to how, when, or by whom it was made. I don't fall in love with something because it was done by somebody famous. To me, good art is relevant despite who made it, not because of them.

For this reason I wouldn't pitch out Allen's body of work even if he came straight out and declared his guilt. Whatever he may have or have not done in his life does not affect the end product. The films stand on their own IMHO. You'll have to pry my copy of Sleeper from my cold, dead bluray unit.

This is equally true of other artists who have been accused - and even convicted - of similar atrocities.

You're not getting my copy of Triumph of the Will, Tess, Amélie, or The Pianist. I consider the people who made or appeared in those films to be some of the most vile examples of humans I can think of. I'm still going to watch and enjoy the art for what it is. I'm also not chucking out my Gore Vidal or Lewis Carroll. My All Killer, No Filler CD is staying with the rest of my Jerry Lee Lewis albums.

If somebody suggested tearing down the Khajuraho Temples or burning Balthus's The Guitar Lesson I'd think 99.9% of the people on this board would be up in arms over it - and those works are overtly perverse by pretty much anybody's standard! Condemning the art because of the artist would be an even bigger afront. The perversity is separated from the object by the artist's individual life.

So yes, if Allen did commit these acts he deserves all that's coming to him. I can't agree with that more.

At the same time I can't abide people saying that we need to avoid his films or not hand out awards for them. You don't punish ugliness by removing beauty. That just hurts us all.
__________________
.
Say what you want about the tenets of International Skepticism, but at least it's an ethos.
.

Last edited by Cool Hand Luke; 3rd February 2014 at 02:20 AM.
Cool Hand Luke is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 06:34 AM   #131
Greedo
Too weird to live, too rare to die
 
Greedo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,603
Whoa, looks like the annual 'take a break from skepticism'-thread is early this year!
__________________
"Die Kunst? Was ich ohne sie wäre? Ich weiß es nicht. Doch mir graut- seh ich doch, was ohne sie Hundert' und Tausende sind!"
Greedo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 06:49 AM   #132
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
Originally Posted by Greedo View Post
Whoa, looks like the annual 'take a break from skepticism'-thread is early this year!
Or, over at Atheism Plus, it's called "every day".
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 06:59 AM   #133
jiggeryqua
Illuminator
 
jiggeryqua's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,107
Originally Posted by Greedo View Post
Whoa, looks like the annual 'take a break from skepticism'-thread is early this year!
With due respect to a forum I've grown to love, it's relatively common round here when it comes to news reports on a range of hot-button topics but with too little in the way of hard facts. In the case of child abuse allegations (rape would work just as well), there are going to be posters who assume guilt and posters who presume innocence. You can get pages of material out of that sort of thing without anyone knowing anything worth a damn about the situation under discussion...
__________________
"What follows is ever closely linked to what precedes; it is not a procession of isolated events, merely obeying the laws of sequence, but a rational continuity." - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
jiggeryqua is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 07:12 AM   #134
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by angrysoba View Post
Are you saying these pictures were not there? It seems Woody Allen himself does not dispute their existence.
No, I'm saying I think there was more to Mia finding out than a set of pictures...and I don't doubt the existence of the pix, just that I find it hard to envision a guy idly tossing a handful of incriminating pornographic pix onto his mantel where anyone could have seen them, including Mia.

But who knows? People have done far stupider things. But I'm permitted to comment on something that seems off kilter to me, m-kay?

Quote:
They weren't on display!
Jesus, calm down. I already noted that. Try reading further before responding.

I couldn't care less if Woody Allen is a child molester. If he is, that's his problem, and if there is evidence of it, I expect the legal system to deal with it. But, since it hasn't been proven-and seems to be strongly disputed-then Mia Farrow and her kids slinging potshots at him via Twitter about an award he earned is pretty poor form.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 3rd February 2014 at 07:19 AM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 07:12 AM   #135
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
Originally Posted by jiggeryqua View Post
With due respect to a forum I've grown to love, it's relatively common round here when it comes to news reports on a range of hot-button topics but with too little in the way of hard facts. In the case of child abuse allegations (rape would work just as well), there are going to be posters who assume guilt and posters who presume innocence. You can get pages of material out of that sort of thing without anyone knowing anything worth a damn about the situation under discussion...
Of course, anyone who doesn't presume guilt is presumed to presume innocence by those who presume guilt.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 07:32 AM   #136
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,241
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Actually, I was correct. The prosecutor sent the statements to both judges which tainted their decisions.



http://theawarenesscenter.blogspot.c...ody-allen.html
No, that's still the same case you're talking about, regarding the annulment of adoption. The Supreme Court case seems to have been an actual custody dispute, not about "visitation rights".
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 07:55 AM   #137
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
No, I'm saying I think there was more to Mia finding out than a set of pictures...and I don't doubt the existence of the pix, just that I find it hard to envision a guy idly tossing a handful of incriminating pornographic pix onto his mantel where anyone could have seen them, including Mia.

But who knows? People have done far stupider things. But I'm permitted to comment on something that seems off kilter to me, m-kay?
Did you see the post that clarified they were said to be under a box of tissues on the mantel? So they weren't quite easy to see by anyone, unless the person moved the box.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 07:59 AM   #138
Dissolution
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,306
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Did you see the post that clarified they were said to be under a box of tissues on the mantel? So they weren't quite easy to see by anyone, unless the person moved the box.
The presence of the box of tissues actually makes me doubt the story.
The innuendo is a little too strong, isn't it?

Does anyone know what Allen was actually accused of?
Does the lack of evidence of any physical abuse have any meaningful value?
Was that sort of evidence expected to be found at the time and did it's absence cast doubt upon the accusations?
Dissolution is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 08:03 AM   #139
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 27,241
Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Sorry if I wasn't clear. We were discussing coaching and you wonder why we thought there was no coaching. I responded and then asked you, if there was no coaching, how do you account for another child, now adult, in the same household stating that there was coaching and, in fact, "brainwashing?" So this isn't a case of one child believing the abuse happened and one not. It is a case of one believing the abuse took place and one knowing that coaching and manipulation did.
I'm sorry; but again I cannot really comment on this. You quote a single word the person used, with no context. I don't know if the "brainwashing" comment is intended to describe being led to believe an act of molestation took place, or merely describe the mother's promotion of Allen as a "bad person". Frankly, I'd like to see an original and complete quote - because you've earlier described the nanny as "stating there was coaching", when your original source didn't even say that, but only quoted her mentioning solely that the video was put together over the space of a couple of days; so I cannot trust your assertion the man you're quoting actually did state that there was "coaching" without a direct quote.

Further, your attachment of credibility to this adult child saying there was "brainwashing" (implied by you to specifically refer to the claim of abuse), while refusing to attach credibility to a second adult child who doesn't make any such contentions while supporting the allegation, is arbitrary.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
The issue isn't how long the video is, the issue is how long Farrow spent eliciting the responses. A period of 2-3 days is a long time.
If the video was composed of all the times the question was asked, then it is really the only way to know "how long" was actually spent on the topic. If we're talking the question being asked twice in an entire day for three days, it's silly to portray that as some kind of cruel grilling in which the kid was forced by the sheer relentlessness of the mother's interrogation to confabulate an incident of abuse, as you have claimed.

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
There is a reason people who interview children are highly trained in what they do and why a parent is probably the worst person to interview a child about such allegations.
The child presumably made a claim; and upon hearing it, the mother wanted to get the claim documented in the child's own words. It's a natural thing for a parent to want to do; and I highly doubt a professional would tell you that the best course of action for a parent whose child has made a claim of abuse is to silence the child until he or she can be gotten to a professional, so as to avoid the possibility of accidentally "coaching".

Coaching is coaching; asking what happened is not. When a kid reports abuse by someone, if asking "what did he do?" is tantamount to coaching, it is then simply impossible for any parent to discuss an abuse claim with their child without opening themselves up to accusations of "coaching". That seems patently unreasonable to me.

If we're talking about questions like "And then he touched you there, right?" or "And then he said not to tell anyone, right?", and definite leading yes/no questions like these, again, you'd have a point. Open-ended, non-yes/no questions like "what did he do?" If you can't use questions like that, how are you supposed to ask about the incident at all?

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Just from the testimony surrounding the video tape, and how it was made, given by Farrow and the nanny , it is easy to see where several of these issues could happen. The professionals at the time agreed and stated the evidence pointed to coaching on the part of Farrow because of sharp inconsistencies in the child's accounts over time and to a climate of dislike for Allen that permeated the household in the 8 months since his and Soon-Yi's relationship came to light.
The only thing ever stated about how the tape was made, was the nanny saying it was made over the course of several days, and that it involved asking the child what happened, and stopping and asking again sometime later when the child did not want to talk about it. No "professionals" at the time "stated that the evidence pointed to coaching", that's a misrepresentation of the information relayed by the biographer's editorial, which itself is already a very selective interpretation of the facts. You're not even bothering to use words like "possibly" or "allegedly" when making these characterizations. The one doctor's written statement that coaching was one of a set of possibilities they considered is being portrayed by you as a declaration of "the evidence pointed to coaching", implying the exclusion of any other credible possibility. I cannot continue to debate this with you when you're so willing to deliberately distort the facts, and resort to hyperbole such as comparisons to satanic daycare cases where no actual resemblance exists.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 3rd February 2014 at 08:05 AM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 08:35 AM   #140
qayak
Penultimate Amazing
 
qayak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 13,773
Here's what a dissenting judge wrote about the visitation agreement:

Quote:
There is strong evidence in the record from neutral observers that Mr. Allen and Satchel basically have a warm and loving father-son relationship, but that their relationship is in jeopardy, in large measure because Mr. Allen is being estranged and alienated from his son by the current custody and visitation arrangement. Frances Greenberg and Virginia Lehman, two independent social workers employed to oversee visitation with Satchel, testified how "Mr. Allen would welcome Satchel by hugging him, telling him how much he loved him, and how much he missed him." Also described by both supervisors "was a kind of sequence that Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the river, and Satchel would say something to the effect that I love you as much as New York City * * * then Mr. Allen might say, I love you as much as the stars, and Satchel would say, I love you as much as the universe." Sadly, there was also testimony from those witnesses that Satchel had told Mr. Allen: "I like you, but I am not supposed to love you;" that when Mr. Allen asked Satchel if he would send him a postcard from a planned trip to California with Ms. Farrow, Satchel said "I can't [because] Mommy won't let me;" and on one occasion when Satchel indicated that he wanted to stay with Mr. Allen longer than the allotted two-hour visit, "Satchel did say he could not stay longer, that his mother had told him that two hours was sufficient." Perhaps most distressing, Satchel "indicated to Mr. Allen that he was seeing a doctor that was going to help him not to see Mr. Allen anymore, and he indicated that he was supposed to be seeing this doctor perhaps eight or ten times, at the end of which he would no longer have to see Mr. Allen."

In contrast to what apparently is being expressed by Ms. Farrow about Mr. Allen to Satchel, Mr. Allen has been reported to say only positive things to Satchel about Ms. Farrow, and conveys only loving regards to Moses and Dylan through Satchel. Thus I find little evidence in the record to support the majority's conclusion that "Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to Mr. Allen's relationship with Satchel's sister, Ms. Previn, would have on the child."
__________________
"How long you live, how high you fly
The smiles you'll give, and tears you'll cry
And all you touch, and all you see
Is all your life will ever be."
qayak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 08:46 AM   #141
jiggeryqua
Illuminator
 
jiggeryqua's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,107
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
<snip>If we're talking the question being asked twice in an entire day for three days, it's silly to portray that as some kind of cruel grilling in which the kid was forced by the sheer relentlessness of the mother's interrogation to confabulate an incident of abuse, as you have claimed.
<snip>
I cannot continue to debate this with you when you're so willing to deliberately distort the facts, and resort to hyperbole such as comparisons to satanic daycare cases where no actual resemblance exists.
Anyway...

Originally Posted by qayak View Post
Here's what a dissenting judge wrote about the visitation agreement:
I despair, perhaps only of those patriarchal misogynists that make up our judiciary, who simply can't escape their gendered upbringing (the mother is always right) and not yet of this thread.

I say 'our', but I'm in the UK and that was presumably in the US which I'd guess had better gender balance in its courts even then? Nevertheless, that a majority opinion that is so wilfully evidence-free doesn't reflect well on any court.
__________________
"What follows is ever closely linked to what precedes; it is not a procession of isolated events, merely obeying the laws of sequence, but a rational continuity." - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
jiggeryqua is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 10:11 AM   #142
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Pup View Post
Did you see the post that clarified they were said to be under a box of tissues on the mantel?
Yes.

Quote:
So they weren't quite easy to see by anyone, unless the person moved the box.
Which a person would do if they happened to catch a glimpse.

Imagine you are standing in Woody's house, by his mantel, and Woody is doing whatever Woody does and not paying close attention to you standing there (since most people don't watch their visitors like a hawk). You catch a glimpse of rather intriguing photos under a box of tissues. Wouldn't you be rather curious enough to lift the box of tissues and take a closer look at the top photo, even without disturbing the rest of them?

All I'm saying is that it seems unlikely that a man would take erotic photos of his young secret love interest and then casually stick them under a tissue box on his mantel. Especially when his older unsecret love interest frequents the residence. As compared to it being more likely he would stick them in a drawer or somewhere less obvious.

So I don't think Mia found out just through pictures laying on a mantel, which was her story, not Allen's. I think she probably intuited something was going on and went snooping. Women do that. I'd do that, in the same situation.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie

Last edited by desertgal; 3rd February 2014 at 10:12 AM.
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 10:13 AM   #143
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Imagine you are standing in Woody's house, by his mantel, and Woody is doing whatever Woody does and not paying close attention to you standing there...
He was probably in the attic.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 10:32 AM   #144
jiggeryqua
Illuminator
 
jiggeryqua's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,107
Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Which a person would do if they happened to catch a glimpse.
A nosy person. Not everyone feels a need to satisfy their every curiousity (should they even feel any) in another person's private space. You may have been invited into the space, but you weren't invited to pry.

Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
Imagine you are standing in Woody's house, by his mantel, and Woody is doing whatever Woody does and not paying close attention to you standing there (since most people don't watch their visitors like a hawk).
Most people wouldn't snoop under a tissue box, not even when they'd seen the corner of a polaroid. Maybe they thought "Well, I have a very high self esteem, so surely everyone else regards me as entitled to go where I please and do as I see fit. Oh, look, the corner of a polaroid photo...that's bound to be the sort of picture you don't want to have developed at the shop. Naughty pictures (or 'dirty pictures' or such as it might be). Lemmeseelemmeseelemmesee!"

Of course, we're not talking about anyone here, nor an imaginary situation. We're talking about Mia Farrow. I can't say that's what she was actually thinking, but I can see how a person might...

Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
You catch a glimpse of rather intriguing photos under a box of tissues. Wouldn't you be rather curious enough to lift the box of tissues and take a closer look at the top photo, even without disturbing the rest of them?
No. I'd think that was weird, rude and verging on sociopathic.

Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
All I'm saying is that it seems unlikely that a man would take erotic photos of his young secret love interest and then casually stick them under a tissue box on his mantel. Especially when his older unsecret love interest frequents the residence. As compared to it being more likely he would stick them in a drawer or somewhere less obvious.
She was his love interest. When do love interests stop being 'young'? Long before the age of this particular love interest, or 'not yet' in the case of my 47 year old love interest. "All" you're saying is more than you say... 'young' attached to an adult connected to man accused of paedophilia is a deliberate deceit. I don't know (and at this point don't see the point of checking) if she was a 'secret' at the time the photos were taken - it doesn't matter, but it's another good word if you have more to say than all you're saying.

Originally Posted by desertgal View Post
So I don't think Mia found out just through pictures laying on a mantel, which was her story, not Allen's. I think she probably intuited something was going on and went snooping. Women do that. I'd do that, in the same situation.
What do you suppose she 'intuited'? (You do the tarot a disservice, by the way, to suppose she didn't 'read it in the cards'). She supposed (let's compromise with that word) that Woody...had legal pictures of a legal relationship. So she went snooping for proof and the Goddess, or her angel, led her to the snaps. Blessed be!

Or was it that she 'intuited' what she has alleged, that she 'knew' Woody was abusing her pre-pubescent child. So she went snooping. (Here, I'll offer a concession: that would be justified by mere suspicion). And lo, she finds Woody has taken legal pictures of a legal relationship. What kind of sick pervert does that?
__________________
"What follows is ever closely linked to what precedes; it is not a procession of isolated events, merely obeying the laws of sequence, but a rational continuity." - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
jiggeryqua is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 11:01 AM   #145
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Legal and weird and pervy and sick and morally wrong are all separate and not mutually exclusive or inclusive things. By my reading, a lot of people are talking past each other on this.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 11:05 AM   #146
jiggeryqua
Illuminator
 
jiggeryqua's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,107
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Legal and weird and pervy and sick and morally wrong are all separate and not mutually exclusive or inclusive things. By my reading, a lot of people are talking past each other on this.
One of them is not like the others, which are at least sufficiently the same.
__________________
"What follows is ever closely linked to what precedes; it is not a procession of isolated events, merely obeying the laws of sequence, but a rational continuity." - Marcus Aurelius Antoninus
jiggeryqua is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 11:13 AM   #147
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Legal and weird and pervy and sick and morally wrong are all separate and not mutually exclusive or inclusive things. By my reading, a lot of people are talking past each other on this.
Only one of these is written down, and even then there are grey areas. The other four are grey areas from the start, and are for each person to define for themselves.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 11:39 AM   #148
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by jiggeryqua View Post
One of them is not like the others,
Correct, as "pervy" is slang. Okay, not being pedantic I know what you mean, but fail to see the relevance. Something being legal is not a rebuttal to it being called any of the aforementioned.

Quote:
which are at least sufficiently the same.
No, but perhaps only perverts care to make the distinctions .
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 11:48 AM   #149
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
Only one of these is written down, and even then there are grey areas. The other four are grey areas from the start, and are for each person to define for themselves.
This would be relevant if legality canceled out the other hey judgments, or people were trying to stick to black and white areas instead of rebutting more gray ones.

And morality being individually subjective is an entirely different argument.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 11:50 AM   #150
dudalb
Penultimate Amazing
 
dudalb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 53,257
Originally Posted by Cool Hand Luke View Post
.
I absolutely agree. Talent is not a license for sin. If Allen did this then he needs to be exposed and brought to justice. No question in my mind about that at all.

At the same time I think there's a case to be made for separating the art and the artist. I view art as independent of its creator. I accept it for its own sake without regard to how, when, or by whom it was made. I don't fall in love with something because it was done by somebody famous. To me, good art is relevant despite who made it, not because of them.

For this reason I wouldn't pitch out Allen's body of work even if he came straight out and declared his guilt. Whatever he may have or have not done in his life does not affect the end product. The films stand on their own IMHO. You'll have to pry my copy of Sleeper from my cold, dead bluray unit.

This is equally true of other artists who have been accused - and even convicted - of similar atrocities.

You're not getting my copy of Triumph of the Will, Tess, Amélie, or The Pianist. I consider the people who made or appeared in those films to be some of the most vile examples of humans I can think of. I'm still going to watch and enjoy the art for what it is. I'm also not chucking out my Gore Vidal or Lewis Carroll. My All Killer, No Filler CD is staying with the rest of my Jerry Lee Lewis albums.

If somebody suggested tearing down the Khajuraho Temples or burning Balthus's The Guitar Lesson I'd think 99.9% of the people on this board would be up in arms over it - and those works are overtly perverse by pretty much anybody's standard! Condemning the art because of the artist would be an even bigger afront. The perversity is separated from the object by the artist's individual life.

So yes, if Allen did commit these acts he deserves all that's coming to him. I can't agree with that more.

At the same time I can't abide people saying that we need to avoid his films or not hand out awards for them. You don't punish ugliness by removing beauty. That just hurts us all.
Oh, I agree. I think that "Annie Hall" is one of the best American films of the 1970's, but that does not keep me from considering Woody Allen to be contemtible.
Same goes for Roman Polanski. Great Director, Despicible Human being.
dudalb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 12:03 PM   #151
epeeist
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 481
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Oh, I agree. I think that "Annie Hall" is one of the best American films of the 1970's, but that does not keep me from considering Woody Allen to be contemtible.
Same goes for Roman Polanski. Great Director, Despicible Human being.
Polanski is a confessed and convicted criminal and fugitive (but who is supported by Mia Farrow).

Allen is merely suspected (but was investigated and no or at least insufficient grounds to lay charges found).

More generally on an earlier point, some people don't seem to understand that all of these things could be true (I'm using some 1st names to avoid Farrow confusion):

1. Dylan honestly believes and has (believed to be true) memories of molestation;

2. Mia could likewise believe them to be true (even if there had been "coaching", repetition and time can change how things are remembered);

3. Allen is innocent.

Or not. I don't know. But try reviewing some info about how even a lengthy interrogation can make people believe things that are untrue, malleability of memories generally not just children, etc. it's not as simple as who's telling the truth, because everyone could be, at least as they remember it (insert Rashomon reference)
epeeist is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 12:19 PM   #152
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
This would be relevant if legality canceled out the other hey judgments, or people were trying to stick to black and white areas instead of rebutting more gray ones.

And morality being individually subjective is an entirely different argument.
"Legality" is the only one that can put you in jail.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 01:48 PM   #153
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
 
Undesired Walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 11,691
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Oh, I agree. I think that "Annie Hall" is one of the best American films of the 1970's, but that does not keep me from considering Woody Allen to be contemtible.
For what exactly?
__________________
Man's material discoveries have outpaced his moral progress. - Clement Attlee, 1945
Undesired Walrus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 02:09 PM   #154
bumlet5
Indescribable
 
bumlet5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,366
Originally Posted by Dissolution View Post
It'd be interesting to hear a rebuttal to this piece from those who believe that Allen's guilty.
I'm not particularly familiar with the accusations.
This guy put my brain into words.

In my mind, the fact that he started dating a young woman when she was around 19 and he was 56 hits pretty hard on the creepy factor. The fact that this young woman was the adopted daughter of the woman he was in a 12 year relationship with seriously ups the creepy factor. Nothing illegal, but seriously creepy.

With these FACTS about him making him suuuuuuper creepy, it's not that much of a stretch to think that he actually molested his daughter. I do tend to believe the victim in these types of situations because I have compassion for people who have been through these things because reasons.
__________________

"I'm a soundwave tsunami, vocal origami, hijack the mic and it's not like anyone could stop me." -mc chris
"I've seen so much death" <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> -Nathan Fillion
bumlet5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 02:10 PM   #155
desertgal
Illuminator
 
desertgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,198
Originally Posted by Undesired Walrus View Post
For what exactly?
I'm wondering the same. If Allen IS a child molester, then, yes, that would be worthy of contempt or worse. But I haven't seen any proof, just some questionable allegations.
__________________
"It's obvious that you seem to be threatened by me for some reason and I find that extremely amusing." - Jodie
desertgal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 02:11 PM   #156
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
Originally Posted by bumlet5 View Post
In my mind, the fact that he started dating a young woman when she was around 19 and he was 56 hits pretty hard on the creepy factor.
If it makes him creepy, what does it make her? Why is the focus always on the man?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 02:35 PM   #157
bumlet5
Indescribable
 
bumlet5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,366
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
If it makes him creepy, what does it make her? Why is the focus always on the man?
Young. It's not always the man that's creepy, but in relationships with a large age gap it's much more common for the man to be the older one. I also find the Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher relationship creepy. And Madonna with the dancer guy.
__________________

"I'm a soundwave tsunami, vocal origami, hijack the mic and it's not like anyone could stop me." -mc chris
"I've seen so much death" <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> <("<) (>")> -Nathan Fillion

Last edited by bumlet5; 3rd February 2014 at 02:40 PM.
bumlet5 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 02:40 PM   #158
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,317
If we are slinging mud, does nobody think it's creepy for a woman to collect children like a crazy lady collects cats? Wikipedia says she has 15 (4 biological, 11 adopted). Her brother is doing 25 years for molesting kids, her ex-husband is accused of molesting kids, she is a friend and supporter of a man who's on the run for sexually assaulting a child. In her youth she dated a man who was 30 years older than her. One of her kids aparantly says that she brain washed them...

Does she have a thing about old men who like young girls? What's with the child menagerie? Just how many convicted and/or accused child molesters does she know?

Last edited by shuttlt; 3rd February 2014 at 02:55 PM.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 02:48 PM   #159
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,060
Originally Posted by shuttlt View Post
If we are slinging mud, does nobody think it's creepy for a woman to collect children like a crazy lady collects cats? Wikipedia says she has 15 (4 biological, 11 adopted). Her brother is doing 25 years for mollesting kids, her ex-husband is accused of mollesting kids, she is a friend and supporter of a man who's on the run for sexually assaulting a child. In her youth she dated a man who was 30 years older than her. One of her kids aparantly says that she brain washed them...

Does she have a thing about old men who like young girls? What's with the child menagerie? Just how many convicted and/or accused child molesters does she know?
All valid points.

I'm curious where she gets the money to raise 15 kids? She's had a few bit parts in recent years, but hasn't been a movie "star" in 25+.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

Last edited by The Central Scrutinizer; 3rd February 2014 at 02:49 PM.
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd February 2014, 03:10 PM   #160
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,317
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
All valid points.

I'm curious where she gets the money to raise 15 kids? She's had a few bit parts in recent years, but hasn't been a movie "star" in 25+.
Oh, it needn't cost as much as you think:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...al-family.html
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:53 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.