"Mueen Nawaz" <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote in message
news:4a469d11$1@news.povray.org...
> On 06/27/09 16:22, somebody wrote:

> > 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.

> I'm quite sure Warp was well aware of this when he wrote it.

Are we only allowed to write things that you are not absolutely sure that
Warp was not well aware?

> > More often than not, where there's smoke, there's fire, and you cannot
and

> Highly misleading. More often than not, where there's smoke, *and no
> one finds a fire*, there was no fire.

Legal system does not look for likely explanations of fire, it looks for
provable (beyond reasonable doubt) of fire. Thus fire may be much more
likely than not, but not provable (as stated).

However, my judgement will always be based on (what I perceive to be) the
most likely explanation.

Thus, Warp's implied suggestion that we should base our judgement only on
the legal outcome is rather, well, naive. It's too much of a binary and
top-down-dictated worldview.

> > 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.

> Yes, but that does not imply that the poor construction worker was
> guilty, or that this fact made MJ statistically more likely to be guilty.

Correct.

> > Also, people's judgements are not as black and white (no pun intended)
as
> > the legal system's.

> Which is what Warp is complaining about. Are you suggesting that if two
> individuals accuse you on separate occasions of things you didn't do,
> it's OK for someone to think you did it? If you did, then I think Warp
> was talking about you...

The more accusations, the higher the likelihood, ceteris paribus. Now, it
may be a planned attack, coincidence... whatever. Sure. But given that even
observing a white dove increases the probability of correctness of the
statement that all ravens are black, let's not pretend that smoke can be
ignored until one sees the fire.

> > outburst? No, and neither should he have been, that would be ridiculous.
But

> It would be ridiculous, because it was not a crime. What MJ was accused
> of is a crime, hence the need to find him guilty if he actually was
> guilty. Your example is not analogous.

I'm not sure you understood. The point is, there are varying degrees of
societal judgement. I can judge fellow humans poorly even if what they did
was not criminal in the eyes of the law (speaking of MR, I suggest you watch
the last dual episode of Seinfeld, where this very subject is the theme).

MJ may not technically have had sexual relations with children. But Bill
Clinton defense/terminology is a technicality for the courts to decide. I
will shape my opinion by the overall picture that emerged. That that
particular accusation was proven or not is not the only or even the major
criteria for personal judgement. This is my main disagreement with Warp. He
seems to claim that since he was cleared of the charge, we should all wipe
our memories clean of what else came about during that process.

Here's an example: A mugger holds a gun to your head and pulls the trigger.
Gun doesn't fire for some reason, and the police apprehend him. As far as
legal system is concerned, there's no manslaughter. He gets of on a lesser
charge. But as far as you and I are concerned, the technicality means
nothing, he attempted to murder you. Whether he ultimately succeeded or not
due to some random happenstance will not change my evaluation of his
character. This is another case where I am not bound strictly by the
conclusions of the legal system to shape my own opinions.

Likewise, had it been the case that Bill Clinton made open sexual advances
to "that woman" but was rejected, would our opinion of him have to be higher
than now? I don't understand the obsession with being found guilty of "the
crime". Yes, it matters greatly from the viewpoint of the legal system. It
has to. We need the legal system to be highly regulated, predictable,
repeatable, objective... etc. But legal proof of crime is sometimes a mere
technicality and pretty much irrelevant as far as my moral judgement is
concerned. MJ's case, to me, is one of those times.

> > 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

> Yes, they can. Which is what Warp complained about. Everybody has a bad
> day, and that day may have been Richard's. That outburst alone is a very
> poor indicator of any racial biases he may or may not have had. If it
> is, then almost everyone I know is a racist, including some people on
> this newsgroup.
>
> And again, his case is irrelevant. There's *no* doubt that Richards
> said what he did. OTOH, there's a lot of doubt that MJ did what he was
> accused of.

Yet, there's no doubt that MJ did a lot of things that may not strictly be a
crime (or *the* crime prosecutor tried to prove), but exposed an ugly side
of his character. Nothing MR did was a crime, yet, I judge him poorly. A lot
of things that MJ seems to have done came much closer to an actual crime,
even if not proven. I will of course judge him poorly too.

> > 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.

> I believe Warp's point is that feelings *are* switched on and off very
> easily - regardless of will. I believe his point is that people should
> be a bit more mature on how they control their feelings.
>
> It seems you saw a clip of Richards, and your feelings switched quite
> quickly.

What's wrong with that? Sure, he was having a bad day/time. But isn't that
the sign of character? Real character seems to come out when shield are
down. It's easy to be nice on a good day, I am sure even Mussolini was a
delight to be with on a good day.

I've had many bad days, and I've seen many others have bad days. I don't buy
that as an excuse.

> > 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

> Or rather, people like yourself try to find any sign of "feigning"
> among them, in order to fit your world view. It's a known phenomenon in
> many disciplines.
>
> Your whole paragraph about the strollers and the differences between
> men and women is ridiculous. You're basically attributing the
> differences to physical/physiological reasons because that's what you're
> used to observing (i.e. invoking a phenomenon to explain that very
> phenomenon).

Well, it's an observation. I don't need to explain it, just note it as a
difference between men and women regarding children.

> > 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.

> Yes, this is precisely what Warp's complaining about - people like
> yourself being incapable of realizing that the difference in behaviors
> between men and women towards children may be mostly cultural, and
> almost none of it physiological.

I've seen many cultures, and even in non-stuck-up/non-western cultures, men
don't normally have an affinity towards children. In fact, children and
teenagers remain in matriarchial domain until quite late by western
standards, and even the father-son bonding is weaker and father-daughter
bonding may be virtually non-existent, not to say anything about
relationships between unrelated men and children. If you still say it's
cultural, feel free to provide an example of a society in which MJ would
have felt right at home.

Post a reply to this message