178
179

NewsCanadian union blocks 'Jeepers Creepers 3' casting in British Columbia over director Victor Salva's child sex conviction (exclaim.ca)

mixmastermatty が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]DoctorFahrenheit[🍰] 60ポイント61ポイント  (86子コメント)

Jeepers Creepers 2 had some really uncomfortable pedo overtones. The fact that this sick fuck and Polanski allowed to work and Mel Gibson isn't says it all about Hollywood.

[–]hecthormurilo 27ポイント28ポイント  (12子コメント)

Polanski in Hollywood? All his films after he runned away are foreign productions

[–]Vindexus 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

ran

[–]_mystery_cow_ 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Really? Maybe it's been too long since I last watched 2, but I can't recall anything like that.

[–]pistachiopaul 24ポイント25ポイント  (5子コメント)

2 is about a high school football team stranded on their school bus and attacked by the Creeper. It has a bunch of shirtless scenes from the young male characters, and the monster spends its time staring at them through windows, licking its lips and choosing which of their body parts it likes the best.

[–]_mystery_cow_ 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

Okay it's coming back to me now. Definitely...odd.

[–]Buckaroosamurai 7ポイント8ポイント  (2子コメント)

Its right in everyone's face why does everyone in this thread find it baffeling. VICTOR SALVA IS THE JEEPERS CREEPERS MONSTER. Its how he see's himself and his desires. I find this fascinating and intriguing at the same time being repulsed by the guy and his crimes.

Its like Bronson, who was clearly a pretty bad person who committed numerous violent crimes, but made very interesting art. Am I saying Jeepers Creepers is Art? Well I don't know, I'm loathe to make distinctions of High or Low Art, but it is fascinating to see a filmmaker who is so clearly showing the world how he thinks of himself and his crimes. Its a startling window into the mind of a predator.

[–]bigboss2014 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

Oh my god stop repeating yourself. Make a comment and leave it. Stop shoving your idea in everyones face.

[–]Buckaroosamurai -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Settle down BB I mentioned it twice. This is hardly shoving it in people's faces.

[–]zgh5002 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

I would have gone with homoeroticism over pedophilic, considering they're in their late teens.

[–]MintyBBQSauce 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

A scene where a bunch of high school dudes take off their shirts and tan on top of a school bus was a bit strange.

[–]ZeusTheElevated 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

holy fuck it all makes sense now...

[–]PeanutLG1990 2ポイント3ポイント  (45子コメント)

Lol this dude has guys take their shirts off in every movie. Look at the movie powder boy he did 95' the dudes a fucking pedo

[–]crossmr 0ポイント1ポイント  (44子コメント)

You realize that pedophelia refers to boys who would be about 8 years or younger right?

How many 8 year olds you know in high school?

[–]PeanutLG1990 3ポイント4ポイント  (7子コメント)

Oh I'm sorry he only molested a 12 year old guess that's normal

[–]crossmr -2ポイント-1ポイント  (6子コメント)

We're talking about the movie, not what the guy did in real life.

In this movie were the kids not in high school?

and I would guess played by actors who were even older?

[–]PeanutLG1990 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

I'm talking about the very odd things he added in each of his movies.

[–]crossmr -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

You said you were talking about him having people take their shirts off. Were any of those people actually that young?

[–]PeanutLG1990 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

Lol you seem very upset by someone considering this fucking weirdo a pedo in any sort of fashion

[–]crossmr -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

I'm not upset, I just speak out against ignorance. if you have a point to make, make it clearly and correctly. is that really so hard?

[–]PeanutLG1990 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

The dude is a fucking weirdo with who is clearly showing it in his movies. The only ignorance is you trying to stick up for him.

[–]Serialsuicider 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I kno this dude who had a little brother at highschool in the same class. I said ti him "dude your brother is smaaaaart"

[–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk -3ポイント-2ポイント  (34子コメント)

You realize that pedophelia refers to boys who would be about 8 years or younger right?

You do realise no one gives a shit outside academia? We all know damn well what is meant in this context.

Also the academic cutoff is 13.

[–]crossmr 0ポイント1ポイント  (32子コメント)

I really like how you're trying to sound smart and sound even fucking stupider.

Pedophilia is a psychiatric illness. The cut-off is pre-pubsecent children. No one is pre-pubescent at 13 years old unless they have their medical issues which have delayed development.

Pubescent and post-pubescent minors aren't remotely covered in the diagnosis. The reason it's used is because "ooo bogey man" don't be a sheep.

Even if you want to hang your hat on the extreme upper limits of the possibilities of puberty, which were written about at a time when puberty began much later than now due to changes in diet, it's still well before high school, which is the age range we're talking about.

[–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk 0ポイント1ポイント  (31子コメント)

the cutoff is pre pubescent children

It's 13, like I said. Here's a link to the DSM.. This was revised in the past 3 years and has nothing to do with dietary changes. I at no point said it wasn't prepubescent, just that 8 isn't the cutoff age which you used to weirdly try and minimise what this man did.

The reason it is used is because it refers to children and not everyone feels the need to divide children based on whether they've gone through puberty. The reason people contest it's use in situations like this is because they want to minimise fucking a, to use your age range, 9 year old. I don't see the difference between a 9 year old on the verge of puberty and one that isn't nor do most who use the colloquial version of the word.

[–]crossmr -1ポイント0ポイント  (30子コメント)

A lot of assumptions, typical of someone who wants to use scare terms rather than actually support their position.

Even if we accept it as 13, we're still talking about high school kids, and how many kids in the movie were 13 or even portrayed by 13 year olds?

and as for your claim that it was revised, that is false,

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ray_Blanchard/publication/236912003_A_Dissenting_Opinion_on_DSM-5_Pedophilic_Disorder/links/00b7d525d3490f0ec3000000.pdf

On December 1, 2012, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) announced that its Board of Trustees (BOT) had voted to reject the changes to the diag nostic criteria for pedophilic dis- order proposed by the Paraphili as Subworkgroup for DSM-5 and to retain the diagnostic criteria published in DSM-IV-TR.

The criteria from DSM-IV are:

‘‘recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger)’’

Bolding is mine.

While it says "generally 13 years or younger", it is in the context of them being pre-pubescent, as in looking like little children. A developed 12 or 13 year old would not fit the criteria. The time frame for kids beginning puberty has shifted quite a bit in the last couple decades. While it's true that some do enter it quite late its much more common for them to enter it early and begin developing at a much younger age. Please do learn to parse what you're actually reading.

The reason it is used by professionals in that context is because there actually is a difference in someone who is attracted to 15 year olds vs someone attracted to 8 year olds.

The reason its used by people every day in a different context is because the media has been pushing it as a bogeyman phrase for a long time, because they need something to label people.

No one is trying to minimize what he did, they're simply asking people not to oversell it. Words have meanings, and abusing them for the sole purpose of being "scary" isn't helpful to any kind of discourse.

[–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk 0ポイント1ポイント  (14子コメント)

On December 1, 2012, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) announced that its Board of Trustees (BOT) had voted to reject the changes to the diag nostic criteria for pedophilic dis- order proposed by the Paraphili as Subworkgroup for DSM-5 and to retain the diagnostic criteria published in DSM-IV-TR.

So the changes were looked at and voted down...so yes revised...

While it says "generally 13 years or younger", it is in the context of them being pre-pubescent, as in looking like little children.

See at the end of the day this is what your argument comes down to. I don't see the difference in fucking a child that looks younger than another. It is a mental age thing and a maturity thing. Hence what I mean about you trying to minimise his actions based on looks.

The reason it is used by professionals in that context is because there actually is a difference in someone who is attracted to 15 year olds vs someone attracted to 8 year olds.

I'm aware of this. I actually said that in my first comment. The reason I don't care is this isn't a professional conversation.

The reason its used by people every day in a different context is because the media has been pushing it as a bogeyman phrase for a long time, because they need something to label people.

No it's because most people just don't care to defend someone who fucked a 14 year old because at least they were post-puberty.

[–]crossmr 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

So the changes were looked at and voted down...so yes revised...

No, it means no changes were made. Revision indicates that a change was made. It's pretty obvious that you struggle with what words mean, but this is pretty pathetic.

See at the end of the day this is what your argument comes down to. I don't see the difference in fucking a child that looks younger than another. It is a mental age thing and a maturity thing. Hence what I mean about you trying to minimise his actions based on looks.

At the end of the day, my argument is to use the word as it is intended to be and not use it incorrectly simply because it has become a term of fear.

I'm aware of this. I actually said that in my first comment. The reason I don't care is this isn't a professional conversation.

The word still has a meaning, I realize you're going for the ignorant blowhard here, but I was giving you an opportunity to step back a bit from that angle.

No it's because most people just don't care to defend someone who fucked a 14 year old because at least they were post-puberty.

Insisting on the correct usage of a term isn't defending anyone. Are there any words that you actually understand the meaning and correct usage of?

[–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk 0ポイント1ポイント  (12子コメント)

Revision indicates that a change was made.

Revision means going over something but sure we can say reviewed instead, either way my original point is still valid.

The rest of your comment is just angry ranting without actually addressing anything I said so I don't really see the point in continuing this if you can't be civil.

[–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk -1ポイント0ポイント  (14子コメント)

You know what i've had a look through your post history and seeing as you come from a country where the age of consent is 13 i'm starting to see why you're so opposed to this.

[–]crossmr -1ポイント0ポイント  (13子コメント)

I'm opposed to ignorance, I don't need to go through your post history to find out why you're struggling with that.

Your little insinuation doesn't make your argument any stronger and only makes you look like more of a failure as a human being. Ignorant, petty, and who will take wild swings in the dark because they can't hold their own in a discussion. If the best defense you can come up with for your ignorance is "herpaderp you must like little kids", well I just don't have the heart to spell out for you what that means..

[–]AWookieeFromKashyyyk -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

If the best defense you can come up with for your ignorance is "herpaderp you must like little kids",

Where did I say that? You come from a country where it is considered legal and moral to sleep with people or for them to have sex once they turn 13. Obviously you're going to have a different view on the matter and clearly you are uncomfortable with challenging that view.

Again your insults do nothing to help you create a constructive argument.

[–]Buckaroosamurai 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Uh yeah duh there are overtones. Victor Salva is the monster in Jeepers Creepers. How are people missing that, he is clearly making himself out to be the monster, in its victims and the way it attacks. Its very clearly about how the man feels about himself and it really isn't veiled in any way shape or form. If making these films is what it takes for him to never do what he did again, so be it. I don't blame Canada for blocking him or his film.

Do I think he should have served more time in jail? Definitely. Do I think he is a monster? Assuredly. Do I find the films he is making interesting as the expression of a real life monster? For sure.

[–]duqit -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Mel Gibson is allowed to work, but the public doesn't demand him anymore. These guys did something in private behind lots of closed doors and protection - so the public can conveniently forget.

I miss Mel.