easycure

But do you see that you keep distorting what I've written? I repeat for the second time: I haven't compared anyone (and I already told you that. Why do you insist?) I simply say that the attitude, the behavior towards some seems the same as that towards others. And since these behaviors are excessively blunt and useless in their stigmatization, it seems absurd to talk about "repression," a term that has also been used recently in contexts that are not exactly "civilized." Moreover, I've never spoken of understanding; I've simply talked about considering what pedophilia is by definition, that is, a pathology. It seems to me that no one does this yet, equivalently and bluntly equating it to a crime... and yet we are in 2007, not in the Middle Ages. To consider it a pathology does not necessarily mean and only mean to understand it humanly, but to accept it for what it is and thus try to resolve it, instead of "repressing" it as you say, which absolutely serves no purpose (as if repression itself meant preventing other pedophiles from emerging. What is it, a genetic mutation?)... the attitude is that of the typical prejudicial stereotype. Yet whether we like it or not, the pedophile is a human being. Just like Hitler or Pol Pot were (it's too easy to say they were crazy, and in fact they were not at all), and as such, must be considered. If one considers him as such, the perspective changes drastically: because it is inconceivable to argue that all pedophiles, due to a pathological inclination, are also ruthless violators (shall we remember Pasolini?), and it is very likely, if not obvious, that there are also hundreds, thousands of people who live this state as a genuine drama. Seen from this perspective, the famous party that was born in the Netherlands has the all-too-clear function (also) of finding a space in a reality that, at present, admits nothing but stoning.

I think you've once again confirmed your convenience in believing that I was motivated by this supposed "hate" (after all, you're not even very original; others before you have tried to justify an obviously unacceptable review in this way, just as it is for you). But in reality, you've demonstrated nothing: first, because you've biasedly reported my comments but not those of the person who wrote to me ;-) ...therefore, in this way, they seem to be standalone comments, when in fact they were responses to more or less uncivil "attacks" quite often. Your decontextualization is the best proof of your bias. Moreover, in one of the comments you cited, I said "I have fun," because that has always been my reason. You project a supposed "hate" that is such a strong and misplaced word that it genuinely makes me smile :-D ...Furthermore, the very simple fact that before this review there were another fifty that uncritically praised Dream Theater never crossed your mind. It also didn't occur to you that my review could have been a response to theirs: to those reviews so closed and obtuse that they consider the DT to be the ultimate and that everyone must bow down by preconceived notion, due to this supposed great technical ability that alone should have incomprehensibly constituted a factor of quality. Since I enjoy writing about music, and over time and through writing I have developed a precise point of view, and since with this precise point of view I could not at all understand this waste of empty big words for this group, I decided to write a response. A simple, obvious, and I hope undeniably legitimate different point of view. But such simplicity is not something you can contemplate at all. "Oh no, it can't be, it's unacceptable to write this way about the DT, there must be hate behind it" ...well, it seems to me to be a really interesting psychoanalytic thing, this entire waste of imaginative projections on the reasons for the review :-D ...regards.

Yes, muffinman, there was no need to repeat it three times :-D ... now "supporter" is a strong word... Let's say that the Beach Boys entertained him... anyway, if what you say is true, it just further confirms what I wrote. Bye.

But then what does "sympathizers of serial killers" have to do with it instead of serial killers... it's a distinction I didn't make. The point is that being a pedophile and being a serial killer are two completely different things: the first definition characterizes only and solely a pathology, until proven otherwise. The second definition concerns nothing more and nothing less than a murderer. This is the point I was emphasizing, the difference that you, punisher, don't seem to grasp. And thank goodness I'm the one who's apathetic :-D

To me, it seems pseudo-Nazi to consider an entire category of people to be "repressed," as you have literally said. Moreover, I specifically said "pseudo-Nazi" ... meaning that it gets very close, but not necessarily so :-) And anyway, I don’t know what’s so populist about my discourse; you first called it "rhetorical," now it’s populist... those are two different things... well... punisher, you continue to constantly misinterpret my discourse. I didn’t say that I agree with love day or whatever it’s called; I was talking about something else.

No, you're wrong. Because a serial killer is only defined as such at the moment they commit a murder (or rather, at least two to be called that); it's not the same for a pedophile, who has automatically become a criminal in the common sense of the term, which is overly prejudicial (as you yourself seem to confirm). The difference is, I would say, fundamental and not that difficult to understand... come on.. :-)

Exactly, repression... and then you tell me that I am the one comparing gays and pedophiles... yet your methods, Epifani, are the same ones used for centuries to treat gays. For my part, I haven't compared them at all; I simply said that the way they are viewed, not without the typical "burn them at the stake" attitude common to any phenomenon subjected to demonizing media massification, is equivalent considering the changing times. I only say that pedophilia is an illness to be treated, simply. While today, as you yourself testify, it is only lived as a type of violence, forgetting that it becomes that at the moment when there is actually a crime. Therefore, instead of punishing a crime, with certain discussions that to me seem much more rhetorical than mine, an entire pathological category is punished. Upon closer inspection, this is entirely pseudo-Nazi.

Shirubvr, I completely understand your attitude: it’s obviously convenient to believe, since I’ve criticized an album that you evidently appreciate, that my analysis is motivated by "hate" (a word that obviously makes no sense when talking about musical tastes)… I also don’t understand what’s angry or resentful about it, obviously nothing you can prove… except perhaps for some "attacks" from DT fans. To conclude, look, I’ve already replied to you: in over 2500 comments and two years of discussions, this album has been analyzed thoroughly. You’ve obviously only read the review, but the response to your invitation is already there: enjoy reading all the comments, go :-D

Sanjuro isn't entirely wrong... how are pedophiles considered today? ...probably like gay people a few centuries ago... and yet, it's true, they are a minority and ultimately suffer from a disorder, but from this point of view, they are rarely considered, to say the least. And yet it's a reality, whether we like it or not. Regarding the pedophile party in the Netherlands, I don't share and would never share their views. Yet, with all its contradictions, I've never been happier than in these months that a country like the Netherlands exists, where censorship is seen as more abject than programs that sell organs and where they can even mock the prime minister live on television... even if it means allowing a pedophile party...

imagine bjork, it's more than legitimate that they might not excite at all.. like all prototypes, they suffer significantly from naivety (which is, by the way, the reason why I actually like them a lot in some of their phases).. :-)