Ed Piskor Has Passed 5 5

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 2:04 PM, sfcityduck said:

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? 

And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. 
 

My statement has nothing to do with the validity of her claims. I view those as what she believes is the truth and what she shows as facts. 

[jimjum12]

On 4/3/2024 at 3:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

Is that fouling your narrative up? A 17 year old girl, who chooses to interact with adults on the internet without parental supervision, cannot still, simultaneously , claim some sort of innocent waif status, and then play the victim, without a little more than the verification from some social worker of questionable skill sets. Grooming? WTF is that? Did he comb her hair? I get all the rage against pedophilia, but I'm sorry, a grown man "hitting" on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence, nor should he be labeled a pedophile, when many, many societies allow marriage at that age. He never even touched her, nor tried to. I'm all for consequences, but I don't support a bunch of lynch mob, scarlet letter dolts trying to get a rise out of hurting people. Was it inappropriate? Possibly, that depends upon intent. Could it possibly have been some good natured flirting that got a little out of hand? What did this gal think was going to happen to him? Did she ask him to stop? Did she block him? I'm not so sure about just how much of a victim she actually was.... yet Ed was treated as if he had dragged a 7 year old out into the underbrush and sodomized them, which is Not OK ... over-reaction should not be a necessary evil, or the cost of doing business. Seems to me like Ed may have been the victim too. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

 

Edited April 3 by jimjum12

[D2]

Rest in Peace, Mr. Ed Piskor

You will be missed. 

 

I’ve read this thread, and although I don’t agree with everyone’s opinions, I am happy we are talking about this, because it needs to be talked about.

I think we can all agree that there were a series of bad choices.

Whether our own personal beliefs may differ, this is just a tragic ending to a huge cultural influencer. 

I liked Ed.

Do I think some of the allegations were creepy? Yes. If you are 37 years old and hitting on a 17 year old, that’s a shady, gross thing to do, whether or not it’s illegal… don’t do it. No good comes of that decision.

From what I know however, he did not forcibly have *** with anyone.

Did he solicit sexual favours? Awful thing to do. From my perspective, you come across as a: (any derogatory term here will do). As a father, my response would be more vicious.

Now, these are allegations, are they not?

I understand why people distanced themselves, including Jim Rugg. At least temporarily. I hate to say it, because so much of me wants to put blame on people, and I think there were many series of bad choices, a chain reaction, from everyone involved.

There is no right here. 

This is just sad. A sad and tragic ending to something and someone I truly enjoyed being connected with (in our 21st century way).

That’s it.

We now live in a world where actions can have serious consequences, and those consequences can be unbalanced.

Rest In Peace, Cartoonist Kayfabe

 

[october]

On 4/3/2024 at 2:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

Have you bothered to look at either of their work? Because if you had, you'd know instantly what Namor was talking about. 

Edited April 3 by october

[Ryan.]

No announcements from Jim Rugg from what I've seen but a new Cartoonist Kayfabe video has been posted this morning.

 

Edited April 3 by Ryan.

[jimjum12]

On 4/3/2024 at 9:12 AM, october said:

Have you bothered to look at either of their work? Because if you had, you'd know instantly what Namor was talking about. 

Due diligence is too much trouble. GOD BLESS ...

-jimbo(a friend of jesus)

[FoggyNelson]

I was unaware of his work so I googled images an he was a great artist! I liked his style ! 
this is a sad lossRIP

[Prince Namor]

Here's some of her work. And again, because of how some people want to portray this... it has nothing to do with what she's claiming. It's simply to show she wasn't creating Mary Poppins comics in her spare time. There's a reason she sought him out... she also liked to draw extreme art. That was... adult in nature.

(I've put a spoiler on the pics because they are NSFW, so beware)

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 3 by Prince Namor

[sfcityduck]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? 

And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. 

On 4/3/2024 at 12:04 AM, sfcityduck said:

Not sure what you are implying here, but it does not look good to me.

On 4/3/2024 at 4:45 AM, jimjum12 said:

Is that fouling your narrative up? A 17 year old girl, who chooses to interact with adults on the internet without parental supervision, cannot still, simultaneously , claim some sort of innocent waif status, and then play the victim, without a little more than the verification from some social worker of questionable skill sets. Grooming? WTF is that? Did he comb her hair? I get all the rage against pedophilia, but I'm sorry, a grown man "hitting" on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence, nor should he be labeled a pedophile, when many, many societies allow marriage at that age.

 

What you, Prince Namor and Jimjum12, are doing here, hopefully inadvertently or ignorantly, is engaging in a practice known as "sl_t shaming" a potential victim. And you are doing it here based on her art not her conduct. No one on this thread has any illusions as to what information or influences there are in the world. But that's irrelevant to the debate being conducted here, and for the potential wrongdoing at issue here it is not a defense. Jimjum12's statement that "a grown man 'hitting' on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence" is more than a bit deaf to the concerns that motivate age of consent laws. Age of consent laws reflect that young hormone filled kids coming of age are programed to want sex. That's why they are vulnerable to overtures from the proverbial "creepy old men."

I think Ed knew what those concerns were and attempted to address them in his final FB message, so I'm more than a bit surprised that you are blind to them:

* "I’m so sorry for being so stupid. I definitely should never have talked with Molly D. ... I wasn’t trolling Instagram randomly but I definitely shouldn’t have chatted with her when I found out how young she was."

* "The whole pile of my dms she collected to show is just awful to look at. I’m sorry."

* "The very next morning after Molly D posted the screencaps I put my last will in testament together. Freewill.com."

That last comment by Ed immediately above is particularly telling, especially as to the allegation he makes elsewhere in the letter that he was murdered by internet bullies.

 

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 2:20 PM, COI said:

Terrible situation, ugly thread.

We've had exponential growth in technology, but we have not grown INTO the technology and we seem to have no chance of catching up. 

What's worse is that the nature of social media appears to be projecting, exploiting and amplifying our worst traits. Not individually, but in sum. The most extreme, maladjusted and misinformed voices get to dictate the terms of the discourse.

We've equipped everyone with the tools to express themselves, but not the skills to evaluate the value of those expressions. I don't think any of us know what we're doing here, but I do know that many people actively make things worse when they decide to add to the noise every minute of every waking hour. I'm not the arbiter of worthwhile utterances, and I'm just as guilty as anyone of saying nonsense, but I think it would serve us all to remember that just because you can, doesn't mean you should. In the vast majority of instances where you feel compelled to speak, you don't have much of value to add, and in some cases you might actually do some damage, regardless of your intentions. 

I try to tell myself this on a daily basis, but sometimes I just can't help myself. Like right now.

My condolences to anyone who knew him.. 

Every time someone says, "This is blowing up on Twitter", I just cringe.

You could have 100 people say the same thing on Twitter, that's NOTHING compared to whatever it is the entire world thinks. 

And there are people who then USE that power to try and manipulate the thought process in people heads... it's mind boggling how dangerous following the heard can be.

[sfcityduck]

On 4/3/2024 at 6:12 AM, october said:

Have you bothered to look at either of their work? Because if you had, you'd know instantly what Namor was talking about. 

I think I know what he was implying. I think it shows a total misunderstanding of the context and purpose of age of consent laws. Whatever she drew is irrelevant to this debate. I'm very surprised that the argument is being made that its ok for an older person to have sex with an underage person if the underage person was interested in, drew pictures of, or had previously engaged in sex is even being made.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 8:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

What you, Prince Namor and Jimjum12, are doing here, hopefully inadvertently or ignorantly, is engaging in a practice known as "sl_t shaming" a potential victim.

Oh for god's sake. 

On 4/3/2024 at 8:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

And you are doing it here based on her art not her conduct.

Ask Mike Diana how that works.

On 4/3/2024 at 8:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

No one on this thread has any illusions as to what information or influences there are in the world. But that's irrelevant to the debate being conducted here, and for the potential wrongdoing at issue here it is not a defense. Jimjum12's statement that "a grown man 'hitting' on a near adult who sought him out in the first place, should not be facing a prison offence" is more than a bit deaf to the concerns that motivate age of consent laws. Age of consent laws reflect that young hormone filled kids coming of age are programed to want sex. That's why they are vulnerable to overtures from the proverbial "creepy old men."

Ed didn't break the law. No one is defending what he did, but he didn't break the law. And I'm sorry, but there are plenty of examples of 17 year olds all over the world who are smart enough, and crafty enough and 'adult' enough to take advantage of the protection they receive due to their age. 

I'm not saying that's what Molly did. Again, I feel like she said what she felt inside. I HOPE that's the case. 

If this DID go to court, I'm sure the defense would try and do it's best to portray it as kindred spirits in art, and show the art work she did, compared to Ed's. That there was a bond there. A creepy one, but one that exists. 

On 4/3/2024 at 8:54 PM, sfcityduck said:

I think Ed knew what those concerns were and attempted to address them in his final FB message, so I'm more than a bit surprised that you are blind to them:

* "I’m so sorry for being so stupid. I definitely should never have talked with Molly D. ... I wasn’t trolling Instagram randomly but I definitely shouldn’t have chatted with her when I found out how young she was."

* "The whole pile of my dms she collected to show is just awful to look at. I’m sorry."

* "The very next morning after Molly D posted the screencaps I put my last will in testament together. Freewill.com."

That last comment by Ed immediately above is particularly telling, especially as to the allegation he makes elsewhere in the letter that he was murdered by internet bullies.

Yeah, he knows he made a mistake. What are you trying to say?

[sfcityduck]

On 4/3/2024 at 12:47 AM, Prince Namor said:

What? You don't think Piskor's comic book work was used in accessing who he is as a person? 

And I'm not even referring to this as guilt or innocence in what Molly SAID, I'm referring to you saying she seemed like an innocent 17 year old who didn't know better. 

Nice pivot. Your post was about her work not his. 

And, no, that's not what I said. If you were confused, let me be clear: Age of consent laws are to protect the vulnerable. There is no "she's not an innocent virgin!" defense to a violation of an age of consent law. Such a defense would pretty much defeat the intent.

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 8:58 PM, sfcityduck said:

I think I know what he was implying. I think it shows a total misunderstanding of the context and purpose of age of consent laws. Whatever she drew is irrelevant to this debate. I'm very surprised that the argument is being made that its ok for an older person to have sex with an underage person if the underage person was interested in, drew pictures of, or had previously engaged in sex is even being made.

Yeah, no one said that. You're being ridiculous. 

[Prince Namor]

On 4/3/2024 at 9:08 PM, sfcityduck said:

Nice pivot. Your post was about her work not his. 

And, no, that's not what I said. If you were confused, let me be clear: Age of consent laws are to protect the vulnerable. There is no "she's not an innocent virgin!" defense to a violation of an age of consent law. Such a defense would pretty much defeat the intent.

First of all, there's NO CRIME HERE.

So why do you keep referring to it as if there was?

ALL we have to establish is WHY he decided to continue talking to her after he found out her age.

Was it just an attraction of an older man to a younger girl? Or did they really have something common?

Well they DID.

It may not nullify the other, but they DID have something in common.

Their weird, uncomfortable, sexualized, art.

And THAT makes a statement toward the overall view of the entire situation. 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/3/2024 at 7:08 AM, Prince Namor said:

 

Ed didn't break the law. No one is defending what he did, but he didn't break the law. And I'm sorry, but there are plenty of examples of 17 year olds all over the world who are smart enough, and crafty enough and 'adult' enough to take advantage of the protection they receive due to their age. 

 

What exactly are you trying to say now? Is the same true for 13, 14, 15 and 16 year-olds? And why are we talking about "all over the world"? Prince Andrew's scandal was a 17 year-old, but I really don't think he, Jeffrey Epstein, or Ghislaine Maxwell were the victims. You are digging a hole and probably should clarify what message you are trying to get across, because the message you are communicating now is completely at odds with any age of consent laws.

 

[Chip Cataldo]

I just saw the examples of Molly's artwork. I don't get it. What possesses someone to create weird/bizarre stuff like that? I mean, the first image isn't too bad but then...

Am I too being conservative about this?

[sfcityduck]

On 4/3/2024 at 7:08 AM, Prince Namor said:

Yeah, no one said that. You're being ridiculous. 

 

On 4/3/2024 at 4:45 AM, jimjum12 said:

A 17 year old girl, who chooses to interact with adults on the internet without parental supervision, cannot still, simultaneously , claim some sort of innocent waif status, and then play the victim

 

[sfcityduck]

On 4/3/2024 at 7:14 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

I just saw the examples of Molly's artwork. I don't get it. What possesses someone to create weird/bizarre stuff like that? I mean, the first image isn't too bad but then...

Am I too being conservative about this?

Ask an underground artist. It's the norm. Also, there are two Molly's in this story.

Edited April 3 by sfcityduck

[warden5523]

On 4/3/2024 at 10:14 AM, Chip Cataldo said:

I just saw the examples of Molly's artwork. I don't get it. What possesses someone to create weird/bizarre stuff like that? I mean, the first image isn't too bad but then...

Am I too being conservative about this?

absolutely