(not accurate transcriptions here, but to the point...)
You're so pretty.
looks deep into her green blue eyes
I fooled you.
And then he starts talking about how an 11-year-old does dating.
Then another one...
You're a young lady who likes to give out hugs and kisses?
Not really.
Not really?
Uh-huh. (that's a no)
So I can't have a hug and a kiss?
Uh-huh (that's a no, again)
Not even if I whisper in your ear that... you're gonna win the show?
Uh-huh (that's a no, for the third or fourth time)
Dirty old man (somebody in the audience)
You hear that? That's a good answer!
And then he tried, but failed (because she was too smart and too fast), to kiss her. That was an attempted sexual assault. I guess he's not here now to deny it, and I certainly won't be defending his honour (or, indeed, lack thereof).
So telling a little girl she's pretty is now predatory. I guess only family members and family friends can get away with that. I see. When i was 5 i got a love letter to get married too. I guess talking about dating at 11 must be horrendous then. You're over-reacting and I'm not defending anyone. Just pointing out how ridiculous this sounds.
You are defending him. You're defending a man who asked an 11-year-old girl multiple times if he could kiss her, and every time she gave a very clear no but he tried to kiss her anyway. That would see a man arrested for sexual assault of a minor if it were in England, rest assured.
What's more is that the show may have been designed to elicit private information about families, be it the mother or child. Given his behaviour on air I for one am extremely dubious about the integrity of the producers, let alone the host. Frankly, he was probably specifically selected for that job.
Anyway, I think you were defending him. As you were now.
I'm defending a generation, not him per se. My opening premise was that it was a more of an innocent time. But what you have done is now blamed the entire scope of the production as being nefarious in selecting a perv to molest children on tv. Isn't that what you are saying? Of course he was selected for that job just as anyone is selected for a job. However, in order to complete your confirmation bias you must tell yourself the producers have dubious integrity. So what are you saying? The tv show is a pedo front? Because no one stopped him and they made 600 episodes? Therefore...the next logical conclusion is... they are all pedos.. Is this the path to take for truth? Or are you guilty of non-sequitur reasoning?
I'm just saying that his actions were not innocent and the producers would, at least in this day and age, be equally as culpable. How a show orientated around children and family life cannot realise that his behaviour was predatory beggars belief, so my guess is that the producers knew this and thus endorsed it.
It's all very well saying that the times were different then, so if we put it into today's context and as per English law for example then what we'd probably be looking at are criminal charges and a special place on the register (unless we're talking about the BBC, of course). That is to say (although I must admit that I do not have a degree in law), I'm pretty sure that what I saw there would, in this day, be regarded as assault.
I'm just saying that his actions were not innocent
Firstly, this is highly subjective. You don't know what his intentions are other than what you formulate in your mind. Surmising evidence based on a cursory glance of an edited video would never stand in court. Yes, he may have been pushy in some instances but that doesn't constitute the worst accusation possible.
How a show orientated around children and family life cannot realise that his behaviour was predatory beggars belief, so my guess is that the producers knew this and thus endorsed it.
Horrible conclusion. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It means the simplest answer is usually the correct one. I say it was an innocent generation and no one considered these behaviors from a game show host as inappropriate. What you posit is the entire production for 7 years enabled a pedo on tv for millions of viewers without ever being detected. A much more complicated matter and not very likely.
It's all very well saying that the times were different then, so if we put it into today's context and as per English law for example then what we'd probably be looking at are criminal charges and a special place on the register (unless we're talking about the BBC, of course). That is to say (although I must admit that I do not have a degree in law), I'm pretty sure that what I saw there would, in this day, be regarded as assault.
if a stranger did this yes. 1000% How about a close family member? Or even a close friend of a family? You see, it's all about the trust factor. Regarding this to be an assault is a slippery slope; for parents may find themselves in hot water. But you want to know what really bothers me? The cheesy porn music thrown in with the creepy slow motion. Horrible taste, just horrible. The person who edited this is not an child advocate because if they were, they would never have used such a disingenuous misleading subliminal method. That's super market tabloid bs and i'm calling it.
I agree with your last point, though... the style of editing was distasteful and counterproductive. Without regard to that, I'd expect anybody working within the realms of child protection would instantly recognise it as grooming - that point we're clearly not going to agree on.
view the rest of the comments →
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
(not accurate transcriptions here, but to the point...)
And then he starts talking about how an 11-year-old does dating.
Then another one...
And then he tried, but failed (because she was too smart and too fast), to kiss her. That was an attempted sexual assault. I guess he's not here now to deny it, and I certainly won't be defending his honour (or, indeed, lack thereof).
Banned4Truth ago
So telling a little girl she's pretty is now predatory. I guess only family members and family friends can get away with that. I see. When i was 5 i got a love letter to get married too. I guess talking about dating at 11 must be horrendous then. You're over-reacting and I'm not defending anyone. Just pointing out how ridiculous this sounds.
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
You are defending him. You're defending a man who asked an 11-year-old girl multiple times if he could kiss her, and every time she gave a very clear no but he tried to kiss her anyway. That would see a man arrested for sexual assault of a minor if it were in England, rest assured.
What's more is that the show may have been designed to elicit private information about families, be it the mother or child. Given his behaviour on air I for one am extremely dubious about the integrity of the producers, let alone the host. Frankly, he was probably specifically selected for that job.
Anyway, I think you were defending him. As you were now.
Banned4Truth ago
I'm defending a generation, not him per se. My opening premise was that it was a more of an innocent time. But what you have done is now blamed the entire scope of the production as being nefarious in selecting a perv to molest children on tv. Isn't that what you are saying? Of course he was selected for that job just as anyone is selected for a job. However, in order to complete your confirmation bias you must tell yourself the producers have dubious integrity. So what are you saying? The tv show is a pedo front? Because no one stopped him and they made 600 episodes? Therefore...the next logical conclusion is... they are all pedos.. Is this the path to take for truth? Or are you guilty of non-sequitur reasoning?
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
I'm just saying that his actions were not innocent and the producers would, at least in this day and age, be equally as culpable. How a show orientated around children and family life cannot realise that his behaviour was predatory beggars belief, so my guess is that the producers knew this and thus endorsed it.
It's all very well saying that the times were different then, so if we put it into today's context and as per English law for example then what we'd probably be looking at are criminal charges and a special place on the register (unless we're talking about the BBC, of course). That is to say (although I must admit that I do not have a degree in law), I'm pretty sure that what I saw there would, in this day, be regarded as assault.
Banned4Truth ago
Firstly, this is highly subjective. You don't know what his intentions are other than what you formulate in your mind. Surmising evidence based on a cursory glance of an edited video would never stand in court. Yes, he may have been pushy in some instances but that doesn't constitute the worst accusation possible.
Horrible conclusion. Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? It means the simplest answer is usually the correct one. I say it was an innocent generation and no one considered these behaviors from a game show host as inappropriate. What you posit is the entire production for 7 years enabled a pedo on tv for millions of viewers without ever being detected. A much more complicated matter and not very likely.
if a stranger did this yes. 1000% How about a close family member? Or even a close friend of a family? You see, it's all about the trust factor. Regarding this to be an assault is a slippery slope; for parents may find themselves in hot water. But you want to know what really bothers me? The cheesy porn music thrown in with the creepy slow motion. Horrible taste, just horrible. The person who edited this is not an child advocate because if they were, they would never have used such a disingenuous misleading subliminal method. That's super market tabloid bs and i'm calling it.
Vigilia_Procuratio ago
Absolutely, and he broke that trust.
I agree with your last point, though... the style of editing was distasteful and counterproductive. Without regard to that, I'd expect anybody working within the realms of child protection would instantly recognise it as grooming - that point we're clearly not going to agree on.