"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:4a467153@news.povray.org...

>   MJ was also a sad victim of people's twisted notion of inverted burden
> of proof in child molestation charge cases: The accused is assumed to be
> guilty until proven innocent. And even after being acquitted of all
charges,
> still highly suspicious. Most people outright call him "pedophile" and
> "child molester" for the sole reason that he was *accused* of being one.
>
>   Now, I'm not saying he wasn't. I have no way of knowing if he was guilty
> or not. However, I find it rather outrageous that people just condemn him
> without any kind of proof, and even though he was never found guilty. That
> should never be done. That kind of thinking is despicable, IMO. That kind
> of thinking has ruined innocent people's lives.

True as the last sentence is, it's not the whole truth. That kind of
thinking has also ruined guilty people's lives, and lack of that kind of
thinking has also saved guilty people's lives. Not only that, but that kind
of thinking on occasion has ruined other innocent people's lives who were
victimized by a wrongfully acquitted criminal whose identity or risk was not
revealed to the community he was released into.

More often than not, where there's smoke, there's fire, and you cannot and
should not expect people to think like automatons with their judegement
circuits indexed to the legal system. Legal system operates on a different
principle: Conviction is proof of guilt (ideally), but acquittal is not
proof of innocence. And it's no secret that rich and famous get benefits
that the commoner does not. If a poor, no-name construction worker had faced
the same accusations and testimonials/evidence, he'd be rotting behind bars
as we type.

Also, people's judgements are not as black and white (no pun intended) as
the legal system's. Did Michael Richards get convicted due to his racial
outburst? No, and neither should he have been, that would be ridiculous. But
a glimpse into the uglier sides of the minds of public figures can forever
taint their accomplishments. I was a big fan of Seinfeld before that, but
hardly feel like watching a rerun, let alone with the same level of
enthusiasm. Like it or not, feelings are not switches that one can turn on
or off at will, neither do I wish that were the case.

>   It also goes to show how twisted modern western society is. It seems
> that the right to love children (in a completely non-sexual way) is more
> or less reserved to women, and men have no right to it, or at the very
> least they have *less* right to it and to show it then women have. If a
> man truely and passionately loves children (again, in a completely and
> absolutely non-sexual way) and acts accordingly, he will usually be
> considered creepy and suspicious. The exact same behavior from a woman
> will be completely ok, though.

Not as much as it used to be, after some highly publicised cases of sexual
abuse of minors by women, (mostly) teachers. That said, I do believe there
are major biological/hormonal/evolutionary...etc differences between the
sexes regarding feelings towards children: Put a baby in a stroller in a
shopping mall, and you'll instantly have a swarm of adoring females. You
won't see any similar flocking behaviour from men (unless the mom happens to
have certain prized qualities). If there are men with those women, a blind
man can read from their faces that they are merely feigning interest not to
come across as a jerk. Men don't ordinarily relate to children, let alone
"passionately love them in a completely and absolutely non-sexual way". Are
there exceptions? Maybe, one in a million. But I don't see a emotionally
balanced (which I don't think MJ was) grown man prefrerring the company of
children, over, say, even a dog's, and finding intellectual fulfillment from
that.

Post a reply to this message